Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <33a2ae53-9114-4f4d-a0c1-145a1db7dcf3@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5429F175.40000@gmx.de>
References: <b15b8cb4-2f0f-45e4-b630-6480ed7d4654@googlegroups.com>	<CAO7tK2csEZWF3QqXMW7dnVx28yCt6GWe60buRHMSd5t1yyXSaw@mail.gmail.com>	<5427DCE6.9020900@gmx.de>	<4004291.GPfs8n1fLZ@caracal> <CACf3dPnNWfayhynFPtBiNPnUiipsZ45vjqZvy-TD-hd7LPgUSQ@mail.gmail.com> <54295019.6010707@gmx.de> <54298F49.8000708@gmail.com> <5429A27F.1040906@gmx.de> <5447269e-70a3-4825-9d3d-40b7a9e24876@googlegroups.com>
 <5429F175.40000@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Speaker specificity: {.i da'i na vajni}
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_3424_809334552.1412037579272"
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_3424_809334552.1412037579272
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:
>
> la .trans. cu cusku di'e=20
> > I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, but I=
=20
> > have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from this is=
=20
> > that the definition of le is essentially:=20
> >=20
> > =E2=88=83X: P(X) and if =E2=88=83Y: P(Y) then Y=3DX, with the proviso C=
(X) & C(Y).=20
> >=20
> > P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context of=20
> > conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the the=20
> > missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.=20
>
> This is more or less what I suggested, but your formula does not account=
=20
> for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To=
=20
> make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace=20
> the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.=20
>
>
Seems reasonable enough. ki'e
=20

> In any case, if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from=20
> {lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?=20
>
>
First, let me say that JCB doesn't appear to take any account of=20
veridicality. In Loglan, `lo` is the mass descriptor. So I am guessing this=
=20
is a LeChevalier invention. Is that true? It would be interesting to know=
=20
JCB's thoughts on it.

In any case, I believe the answer to your question is simply to remove the=
=20
contextual proviso. By my reading of the CLL that seems to be the idea.

=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_3424_809334552.1412037579272
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, se=
lpa'i wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-lef=
t: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la .trans. cu cusk=
u di'e
<br>&gt; I would very much like to read Loglan 2 Chapter 8 to learn more, b=
ut I
<br>&gt; have to find a copy of Loglan 2. In any case, my take away from th=
is is
<br>&gt; that the definition of le is essentially:
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; =E2=88=83X: P(X) and if =E2=88=83Y: P(Y) then Y=3DX, with the prov=
iso C(X) &amp; C(Y).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; P is the descriptive predicate and C means "is within the context =
of
<br>&gt; conversation". I am inclined to think that this last part is the t=
he
<br>&gt; missing logic that could tie Russell's thinking in with JCBs.
<br>
<br>This is more or less what I suggested, but your formula does not accoun=
t=20
<br>for plurals (though you did use capital letters for your variables). To=
=20
<br>make it work for plurals, you need to use plural variables and replace=
=20
<br>the identity relation with the among relation in your formula.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Seems reasonable enough. ki'e</div><di=
v>&nbsp;<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;marg=
in-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">In any case,=
 if that is what {le} means, then how does it differ from=20
<br>{lo}, for which the same definition would also make sense?
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>First, let me say that JCB doesn't app=
ear to take any account of veridicality<font color=3D"#888888">.</font> In =
Loglan, `lo` is the mass descriptor. So I am guessing this is a&nbsp;<span =
style=3D"color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 21.2=
80000686645508px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);">LeChevalier</span>=
&nbsp;invention. Is that true? It would be interesting to know JCB's though=
ts on it.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, I believe the answer to you=
r question is simply to remove the contextual proviso. By my reading of the=
 CLL that seems to be the idea.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_3424_809334552.1412037579272--