Received: from mail-vc0-f191.google.com ([209.85.220.191]:39165) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XbyT2-0007nm-H7 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:24 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f191.google.com with SMTP id hq12sf1568943vcb.28 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=references:message-id:date:from:reply-to:subject:to:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=zXIr78smqDKXJFmU+NIM4LeQr2SUcZJHjMIUPw1KPLE=; b=YyfBKqGtXuTTlosl1yMYq/sfl/KfRExaLh7AVoSzy67iOEghMjhdyy2GQzVtTiWI5w 0MkII87u/ZE1JgnC1lzyceKrEObXu7XAElCM/vTx8eRsCdtYCUNLP4+BxuPx4hQV279z /8XyBZvRY/WmKg6Xeb3Q6lyanVl+E8tPaXPaGadqUXBCqIeDZ5KYRuI0SjCkY1sg31aE ozFU4o7onYXcNLRIAfbHB7l0sOl5CLVay+DDlR5Aqzkkd44yK/0lfxjiZGVOGsiS4GWY S1E1bbYihfcLRtpCztRVvaS8C/E3HbPkhFgFfGM5C7jIlDF+a+7OZ124A62l0f8A6D6o ddDw== X-Received: by 10.50.30.97 with SMTP id r1mr365211igh.0.1412802489715; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.30.163 with SMTP id t3ls679632igh.23.gmail; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.207.5 with SMTP id fw5mr319403icb.20.1412802489290; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm20-vm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm20-vm8.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com. [216.39.63.228]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e16si137168pdf.2.2014.10.08.14.08.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.39.63.228 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.39.63.228; Received: from [216.39.60.166] by nm20.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2014 21:08:09 -0000 Received: from [216.39.60.230] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2014 21:08:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2014 21:08:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 29730.35438.bm@omp1001.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 28494 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Oct 2014 21:08:08 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 1vNaLhoVM1lwNcU8GOkKZAx2aeoVJ6xjEzwkmbYjXs2Dp2x jEbNRPZJjyTl.HADWdB3G7G5DTZWX5CUN13vxsYrcSMgDTFNHQNdnkWrqx5H L8bEVO2iP1n_8Yip7KHcgQStHSsQAEdkVin32njdg_FmlCTSSwpfFImPCqWS 0GNCYOCPolyyEuLIuF2lm0groOr6yuq3RClolkVCvjLOAsiMT9AKblDiuNCO 8OLJhePovt7RllOEe6awMZlMZ_Txe3hglz5St7QRHy0zFy2E3_DOov0xgq23 JTrojET6Mr.nubSnLRMKY_Jk5yNItOiKpENxFmC7b.sbM8N5eWIszoNPekkj 7J5S.sQwbWiVXjHDwiTzjwQO4QYvXBPgBu1XjthbF.q19CEJFSa5ewepg2_4 U7OsJS8wjNMcX.yET_qebLTZiycMhcJMfJN32n.LXg_OspDuz21SCiROdUCd MiJaxpxPwhfkMFdgAU5rbwV71bTGdJt5nyJuLV2v2l8LxI.Z0ZNzjUR8pMx0 iw9IEs6Hi.Yhw4O4FMagZAoEij6V3Dw5bnslWF9i9kghOqG7j_y5oL2tZnjt MC.GTkbeK3o5fqBazJpJJwluLOPMRgKKyVJQBoAp5gJ4AJ1nNR80luVnczKT AyhMS8F67aUThJnMs8VdAvfXrRD_k.onGcwLUzdGbmM97bVYZvNdoOszFkNI o8h0lmlcDtIUrMzs6dtSgMzwDwlMCuePGWbcerurdXBg- Received: from [99.92.109.82] by web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:08:08 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,SQphbSBzdGlsbCBwdXp6bGVkIGJ5IHdoYXQgdGhpcyBzdHJlYW0gaXMgYWxsIGFib3V0LCBidXQgSSBjYW4gY29tbWVudApvbiBhIGZldyBwZXJpcGhlcmFsIChJIHRoaW5rKSB0b3BpY3MuIAogIAogSQphcG9sb2dpemUgZm9yICJ2ZXJpZGljYWwiLiAgSSBleHBlY3QgaXQgaXMgbWluZSwgc2luY2UKSSBjYW4ndCBmaW5kIGl0IGluIEJyb3duIGFuZCBpdCBoYXMgdGhlIHNtZWxsIG9mIGV4cG9zdXJlIHRvClBoaWxvc29waHkgYWJvdXQgaXQuICBJdCBpcywgdGhlbiwganVzdCBhbm90aGVyIGNhc2Ugb2YgTG8BMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.203.696 References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1412802488.55250.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 14:08:08 -0700 From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" In-Reply-To: <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.39.63.228 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Original-From: John E Clifford Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-204173969-1797236497-1412802488=:55250" X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ---204173969-1797236497-1412802488=:55250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am still puzzled by what this stream is all about, but I can comment on a few peripheral (I think) topics.=20 =20 I apologize for "veridical". I expect it is mine, since I can't find it in Brown and it has the smell of exposure to Philosophy about it. It is, then, just another case of Logjam taking over a technical term and misusing it to death (cf. pseudo sciences generally). It does indeed originally apply to propositions and is here used for descriptions in place of "accurate" or some such. Of course, descriptions (in Logic, at least) are meant to be accurate and so there is no point in mentioning that fact. But Logjam thought it had a description with {le} which could function even if not accurate, so we needed to distinguish the normal description somehow. Of course, it turns out {le} phrases aren't logically descriptions, so we can drop the whole thing. =20 {zo'e noi broda cu brodu} =3D {zo'e ge broda gi brodu} is almost correct logically though dubious linguistically, which would prefer {zo'e ge brodu gi broda} since {zo'e} is defined on the head predicate, not the peripheral. It is, in fact, the final stage in a process of talking about what to put in for places on a predicate that one doesn't want to fill. The first solution was just to leave them blank and cover the logical problem with that by understanding a short-scope particular quantifier, Griceanly, though, this implicated that either you did not know or did not care what filled that slot. While this was often true, it also was often not, though the reasons for omitting a reference were varied: it was obvious from context or impolitic to mention, for example. So, Griceanly again, we stuck in a marker that said we did know and care but weren't saying. But that seemed paradoxical, so we dropped that clause and came down to what we have now =E2=80=9Crefers to an object that makes the bridi true=E2=80=9D But, in fact, it is usually not the case that just any thing will do, but rather that some salient one is required or, at least, intended, so {zo'e} as bearer of this role, has this feature as well (and this is crucial, though ill-used, in a further feature to be discussed, even though not mentioned). In short, logically, {zo'e} stands for a generalized Skolem function dependent the predicate place and all the other arguments to that predicate and yields the salient object(s) that fit in that place in the given context. Briefly, {zo'e broda} =3D {lo broda cu broda} (where {broda} includes the relevant information). =20 This means that the =E2=80=9Cdefinition=E2=80=9D floating around for {lo broda} = is, at best, circular. But, in fact it is not that good. In the first place, {zo'e} is only defined when filling a place and in the definition it is used separate from any predicate (shades of the independent use of Russell's description and the messes that causes). So, i= nsert the definition into its proper place: {lo broda cu brode} =3D {ze'a noi broda cu brode}. This latter is a tautology, since {ze'a} always refers to a thing which makes the predication true.=20 But the first is not a tautology (except when the head predicate is {broda} again). The definiens has the matter bass ackwards, making the essential property of the referent an incidental feature and the incidental the essential (the use of {noi} rather than {poi} for the essential feature emphasizes this inversion). As a result, the meaning of {lo broda} so defined changes with each use, emphasizing that it is definition in terms of the incidental not the essential.=20 (I pass over the question of scope here, since the problems there =E2=80= =93 and the variety of solutions =E2=80=93 are too well known and only arise if this definition is accepted, which I suppose it should not be,) This is a wormrunner theory, ignotum per ignotius: the only ground for using {zo'e} is salience, which is there implicitly from history but not there in fact and what is in its place is a mystery. Finally, a practical note. Whatever the point of all this is, dealing with MEX now is bad idea. Given that the creators of Lojban don't know how MEX works and, to a great extent, don't even know how it should work, trying to explain it now is a thankless task foreddomed to failure. Eventually, when you have a successful theory (of whatever sort you are working on) for the core of Lojban, you will be in a position to apply that theory to MEX to explain how parts of it work and to criticize and guide the development of other parts.=20 Hopefully. But not now and not yet as a part of e\developing that theory. On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 2:40 AM, And Rosta wrot= e: =20 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:59: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, And Rosta > wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 06/10/2014 23:10: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, And Rosta >> wrote: > > So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {zo'e ge broda g= i brodu}? > > I would say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in = one > case presupposed and in the other case asserted. > > Okay. That answers my question. What's the rationale for your answer = (i.e. for holding that the lo description is presupposed)? > > I take "lo broda" to be a referring expression, not a claim, and > therefore the veridicality of its description can only be > presupposed. I'm not sure what other kind of rationale there might > be. If {lo broda cu brodu} were equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}, you cou= ld still say {lo broda} was a referring expression by virtue of the {zo'e} = it is equivalent to. Referentiality needn't entail presupposition of the de= scription. As rationales, I thought you might be arguing that it's better t= o have different ways to express different meanings rather than merely diff= erent ways to express the same meaning; or maybe you had discovered logical= pitfalls with a nonpresuppositional version of {lo}. > Since "lo" is marked neither as definite/indefinite nor as > specific/generic, it is useful for identification of its referents > that it is at least veridical, This also allows maintaining the > original definition of "lo", prior to CLL: "veridical descriptor: the > one(s) that really is(are) ..." What do you mean by 'identification'? The speaker knows what the referent i= s, and doesn't need to identify it to themself; and the referents aren't ne= cessarily identifiable to the addressee. It's not clear to me -- without knowing any literature on the matter -- tha= t presupposition can rightly be considered veridical, but I can see why you= 'd think presupposition is at least tantamount to veridicality, and so is a= ppropriate for the meaning of CLL-defined {lo}. > I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using {zo'e}. Si= nce afaik Lojban has no words for marking presupposition, any periphrasis (= without the requisite neologistic presupposition-markers) is doomed to fail= . > > Yes, the usual paraphrase for "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda", > which changes the presupposition into a side-claim, which is as close > as we could make it. Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presupposition than to pu= t about an incorrect paraphrase. >But even with that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu" > is not equivalent to "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo broda > cu brodu" =3D "naku zo'e noi broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e na broda .i ta'o > ri brodu" is not equivalent to "naku zo'e ge broda gi brodu" =3D "zo'e > ga na broda gi na brodu". It might be -- coherently -- that "lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi= brodu", while "na ku lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi na ku brodu"= , which is what I'd had in mind. That is, the "lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e= ge broda gi brodu" equivalence is not a rule for exchanging word-strings b= ut rather for deriving more basic logical forms from less basic ones. --And. --=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. --=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. ---204173969-1797236497-1412802488=:55250 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am still puzzled by what this stream is all about, but I can comment on a few peripheral (I think) topics. 
 
I apologize for "veridical".  I expect it is mine, since I can't find it in Brown and it has the smell of exposure to Philosophy about it.  It is, then, just another case of Logjam taking over a technical term and misusing it to death (cf. pseudo sciences generally).  It does indeed originally apply to propositions and is here used for descriptions in place of "accurate" or some such.  Of course, descriptions (in Logic, at least) are meant to be accurate and so there is no point in mentioning that fact.  But Logjam thought it had a description with {le} which could function even if not accurate, so we needed to distinguish the normal description somehow.  Of course, it turns out {le} phrases aren't logically descriptions, so we can drop the whole thing. 


{zo'e noi broda cu brodu} =3D  {zo'e ge broda gi brodu} is almost correct logically though dubious linguistically, which would prefer {zo'e ge brodu gi broda}  since {zo'e} is defined on the head predicate, not the peripheral.  It is, in fact, the final stage in a process of talking about what to put in for places on a predicate that one doesn't want to fill.  The first solution was just to leave them blank and cover the logical problem with that by understanding a short-scope particular quantifier,  Griceanly, though, this implicated that either you did not know or did not care what filled that slot.  While this was often true, it also was often not, though the reasons for omitting a reference were varied: it was obvious from context or impolitic to mention,  for example.  So, Griceanly again, we stuck in a marker that said we did know and care but weren't saying. But that seemed paradoxical, so we dropped that clause and came down to what we have now =E2=80=9Crefers to an object that makes the bridi true=E2=80=9D But, in fact, it is usually not the case that just any thing will do, but rather that some salient one is required or, at least, intended, so {zo'e} as bearer of this role, has this feature as well (and this is crucial, though ill-used, in a further feature to be discussed, even though not mentioned). In short, logically, {zo'e} stands for a generalized Skolem function dependent the predicate place and all the other arguments to that predicate and yields the salient object(s) that fit in that place in the given context. Briefly, {zo'e broda} =3D {lo broda cu broda} (where {broda} includes the relevant information).
This means that the =E2=80=9Cdefinition=E2=80=9D floating around for {lo broda} = is, at best, circular. But, in fact it is not that good. In the first place, {zo'e} is only defined when filling a place and in the definition it is used separate from any predicate (shades of the independent use of Russell's description and the messes that causes). So, insert the definition into its proper place: {lo broda cu brode} =3D {ze'a noi broda cu brode}. This latter is a tautology, since {ze'a} always refers to a thing which makes the predication true.=20 But the first is not a tautology (except when the head predicate is {broda} again). The definiens has the matter bass ackwards, making the essential property of the referent an incidental feature and the incidental the essential (the use of {noi} rather than {poi} for the essential feature emphasizes this inversion). As a result, the meaning of {lo broda} so defined changes with each use, emphasizing that it is definition in terms of the incidental not the essential.=20 (I pass over the question of scope here, since the problems there =E2=80= =93 and the variety of solutions =E2=80=93 are too well known and only arise if this definition is accepted, which I suppose it should not be,) This is a wormrunner theory, ignotum per ignotius: the only ground for using {zo'e} is salience, which is there implicitly from history but not there in fact and what is in its place is a mystery.


Finally, a practical note. Whatever the point of all this is, dealing with MEX now is bad idea. Given that the creators of Lojban don't know how MEX works and, to a great extent, don't even know how it should work, trying to explain it now is a thankless task foreddomed to failure. Eventually, when you have a successful theory (of whatever sort you are working on) for the core of Lojban, you will be in a position to apply that theory to MEX to explain how parts of it work and to criticize and guide the development of other parts.=20 Hopefully. But not now and not yet as a part of e\developing that theory.



On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 2:40 AM, And Rosta <and.= rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


J= orge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 07/10/2014 21:59:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:00 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.= com>> wrote:
>  &= nbsp; Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 06/10/2014 23:10:
>        On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:55 = AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.c= om <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.c= om> <mailto:and.rosta@gma= il.com <mailto:and.rosta@gma= il.com>>> wrote:
><= br clear=3D"none" class=3D"" style=3D"">>              So {lo broda cu brodu} is not equivalent to {z= o'e ge broda gi brodu}?
>
>        I would = say they are not equivalent because that it brodas is in one
>        case presupposed= and in the other case asserted.
&g= t;
>    Okay. That an= swers my question. What's the rationale for your answer (i.e. for holding t= hat the lo description is presupposed)?
>
> I take "lo broda" t= o be a referring expression, not a claim, and
> therefore the veridicality of its description can only be> presupposed. I'm not sure what = other kind of rationale there might
> be.

If {lo broda cu brodu}= were equivalent to {zo'e ge broda gi brodu}, you could still say {lo broda= } was a referring expression by virtue of the {zo'e} it is equivalent to. R= eferentiality needn't entail presupposition of the description. As rational= es, I thought you might be arguing that it's better to have different ways = to express different meanings rather than merely different ways to express = the same meaning; or maybe you had discovered logical pitfalls with a nonpr= esuppositional version of {lo}.
> Since "lo" is marked neither as = definite/indefinite nor as
> spe= cific/generic, it is useful for identification of its referents
> that it is at least veridical, This also = allows maintaining the
> original definition of "lo", pri= or to CLL: "veridical descriptor: the
> one(s) that really is(are) ..."

What do you mean by 'identif= ication'? The speaker knows what the referent is, and doesn't need to ident= ify it to themself; and the referents aren't necessarily identifiable to th= e addressee.

It's not clear to me -- without knowing any literature o= n the matter -- that presupposition can rightly be considered veridical, bu= t I can see why you'd think presupposition is at least tantamount to veridi= cality, and so is appropriate for the meaning of CLL-defined {lo}.

&g= t;    I have seen attempts to define {lo} periphrastically using= {zo'e}. Since afaik Lojban has no words for marking presupposition, any periphrasis (without the requisite neologi= stic presupposition-markers) is doomed to fail.
>
> Yes, the usu= al paraphrase for "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda",
> which changes the presupposition into a side-claim= , which is as close
> as we coul= d make it.

Far better to introduce an experimental cmavo for presuppo= sition than to put about an incorrect paraphrase.

>But even with= that paraphase "lo broda cu brodu"
> is not equivalent to "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", because "naku lo broda=
> cu brodu" =3D "naku zo'e noi = broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e na broda .i ta'o
> ri brodu" is not equivalent to "naku zo'e ge br= oda gi brodu" =3D "zo'e
> ga na = broda gi na brodu".

It might be -- coherently -- that "lo broda cu br= odu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi brodu", while "na ku lo broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'= e ge broda gi na ku brodu", which is what I'd had in mind. That is, the "lo= broda cu brodu" =3D "zo'e ge broda gi brodu" equivalence is not a rule for= exchanging word-strings but rather for deriving more basic logical forms f= rom less basic ones.


--= And.

--
You received this me= ssage because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<= /a>
To post to this group, send ema= il to lojban@googlegroups= .com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
F= or more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
---204173969-1797236497-1412802488=:55250--