Received: from mail-ee0-f64.google.com ([74.125.83.64]:54186) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XbzQC-00087Z-UN for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:30 -0700 Received: by mail-ee0-f64.google.com with SMTP id d49sf23388eek.19 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=aW6xiAH7rZHlvgqwAuiSo2AJ8hrWW+CT+TqZ3beLW4A=; b=iBlh/IkIlWqUCZgvgjCNGHVf6fnA6Pb7eTnK4d1hO9U00SRmccnNB0L7GUQzWb4kCZ eE7BKYnOlNjgmqQ0SUAFfSpR1+Ovkm4jo2Udnn82+2/tGr8VX3kJjvns4llrhWDXuhBB dlmTnBBjrOwyanK10AGlh4W8smGYEYf6KiXbq8Qg5J92IWavjPrrxsKTPZywvrr4w5Sp hmKdZdqDo6r1MwMTOZnvCaozVQNdOBuHNhLJA5PyCaEHbZuCxQn325a9ETjf4I4lHslR vlDBPP7Ej3iAj12evAULHL59kdXnRj/LEFhyAP/3/AMCajOCSIIYMZ6ADvHrk3a8C4fI imYw== X-Received: by 10.152.6.226 with SMTP id e2mr38115laa.34.1412806157937; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.27.225 with SMTP id w1ls114315lag.2.gmail; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.43.66 with SMTP id u2mr1977695lal.1.1412806156763; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id us10si211569lbc.1.2014.10.08.15.09.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b; Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z12so16840lbi.30 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.153.4.11 with SMTP id ca11mr14359557lad.24.1412806156655; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.176 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> References: <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales> <20141006025048.GE1974@gonzales> <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:09:16 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.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: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11342f161aa0340504f0913e X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11342f161aa0340504f0913e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Back in the situation with five apples, what would > lu'i re plise > mean with your rules? It seems natural to want something definite, so it > literally being > lo selcmi be re plise, > with {lo} having the maximality presupposition discussed elsewhere, > would be an answer. That presupposition in this case forces it to be > a kind; let's call it "sets of two apples". Is this really something we > want {lu'i} to be able to return? > I wouldn't mind actually, mainly because I don't much care for sets in Lojban. But "lu'i" is not the most used LAhE. Those would have to be "tu'a" and "la'e" (and their cousin "na'e bo"), so I think we should concentrate mainly on these three to work out the rules. "la'e" is "lo se sinxa be", "tu'a" is "lo dumco'e be" or sometimes "lo nunco'e be", and "na'e bo" is "lo drata be" (or maybe better "lo nardu'o be"). "la'e" is hardly ever used with quantifier or logically connected arguments. Those would not be particularly useful with my proposed expansions. For "tu'a", it is crucial that it doesn't let quantifiers and connectives out since it's very purpose is to create an opaque context. And "na'e bo" does have its uses. For example: "ro na'e bo ko'a .e ko'e" = "ro lo drata be ko'a .e ko'e" = "all but ko'a and ko'e". In this case, "all but ko'a and all but ko'e" would be less useful. So, based on "tu'a" and "na'e bo", which together with "la'e" are basically the only members of LAhE/NAhE BO that have relevant use, I would say that the subordinate reading is what makes the most sense. > > So "li cy" is a free variable? And bindable like "da": "ro li cy poi > broda > > zo'u li cy brode". So "ro li cy" is not "ro da poi me li cy"? > > I certainly hope "ro li cy" is "ro da poi me li cy". Currently the only > exception to that is for the da-series, I think we'd need a very good > reason to add more. > Good. But then is it worth making "li cy" differ from "cy"? I don't think there's an entirely direct way to quantify over mekso > variables, but how about e.g. {ro namcu goi li xy zo'u} (which I would take > to be an abbreviation of {ro da poi namcu ku'o da goi li xy zo'u})? > Right, but that would work with plain "xy" as well, right? I think making "xy"="li mo'e xy" but different from "li xy" is asking for trouble. > But CLL is quite explicit that logically connected tenses follow the > same expansion rules as logically connected sumti, and it seems entirely > coherent for them to, so I don't plan to change that without a good > reason. > That seems fine, I don't object. > > So you mean that {lo plise} has to refer to Apple *if* Apple is in the > > > UD, but for contextual reasons it sometimes might not be? But when it > > > isn't, there does nonetheless have to be a unique maximal referent, or > > > else {lo plise} fails to refer? > > > > More or less, yes. The problem is that I don't have a good theory of UD, > so > > "if Apple is in the UD" is extremely relative in practice, since it can > > very easily enter or leave the UD as required. For the analysis of > logical > > forms we don't really need to concern ourselves with those things. > > No, but we do need to put the maximality condition in there if it should > be there. > For analysis of logical forms? I'm not sure we do, since all we need to know is that "lo broda" is a constant (or a function, if "broda" contains free variables). > So... are we sure it should? > > Both forms of the gadri seem useful to me. I have been happily using > {lo} without this maximality presupposition, and I think at least some > of the irci have been too. > I think the maximality presupposition can't be properly examined without a clear idea of how the universe of discourse works. I suspect that the uses you have in mind as non-maximal with a certain understanding of UD can be reinterpreted as maximal with a different understanding of UD. But this goes a long way to explaining why you wanted {lo me ko'a gi'e > broda} for {ko'a poi broda}, where I thought having a maximality > condition would be more natural - you were understanding the maximality > to be implied by the {lo}! Right. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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 email 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. --001a11342f161aa0340504f0913e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

Back in the situation with five apples, what would
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 lu'i re plise
mean with your rules? It seems natural to want something definite, so it literally being
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 lo selcmi be re plise,
with {lo} having the maximality presupposition discussed elsewhere,
would be an answer. That presupposition in this case forces it to be
a kind; let's call it "sets of two apples". Is this really so= mething we
want {lu'i} to be able to return?

I= wouldn't mind actually, mainly because I don't much care for sets = in Lojban. But "lu'i" is not the most used LAhE. Those would = have to be "tu'a" and "la'e" (and their cousin = "na'e bo"), so I think we should concentrate mainly on these = three to work out the rules.=C2=A0

"la'e&= quot; is "lo se sinxa be", "tu'a" is "lo dumco= 'e be" or sometimes "lo nunco'e be", and "na= 9;e bo" is "lo drata be" (or maybe better "lo nardu'= ;o be").

"la'e" is hardly ever = used with quantifier or logically connected arguments. Those would not be p= articularly useful with my proposed expansions.

Fo= r "tu'a", it is crucial that it doesn't let quantifiers a= nd connectives out since it's very purpose is to create an opaque conte= xt.

And "na'e bo" does have its uses= . For example: "ro na'e bo ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "ro= lo drata be ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "all but ko'a and ko&#= 39;e". In this case, "all but ko'a and all but ko'e"= would be less useful.

So, based on "tu'a= " and "na'e bo", which together with "la'e"= ; are basically the only members of LAhE/NAhE BO that have relevant use, I = would say that the subordinate reading is what makes the most sense.
<= div>
=C2=A0
> So "li cy" is a free variable?=C2=A0 And bindable like "= ;da": "ro li cy poi broda
> zo'u li cy brode". So "ro li cy" is not "ro da= poi me li cy"?

I certainly hope "ro li cy" is "ro da poi me li cy&qu= ot;. Currently the only
exception to that is for the da-series, I think we'd need a very good reason to add more.

Good. But then is i= t worth making "li cy" differ from "cy"?

=
I don't think there's an entirely direct way to quantify over mekso=
variables, but how about e.g. {ro namcu goi li xy zo'u} (which I would = take
to be an abbreviation of {ro da poi namcu ku'o da goi li xy zo'u})?=

Right, but that would work with plain = "xy" as well, right? I think making "xy"=3D"li mo&= #39;e xy" but different from "li xy" is asking for trouble.<= /div>
=C2=A0
But CLL is quite explicit that logically connected tenses follow the
same expansion rules as logically connected sumti, and it seems entirely coherent for them to, so I don't plan to change that without a good
reason.

That seems fine, I don't ob= ject.=C2=A0

> > So you mean that {lo plise} has to refer to Apple *if* Apple is i= n the
> > UD, but for contextual reasons it sometimes might not be? But whe= n it
> > isn't, there does nonetheless have to be a unique maximal ref= erent, or
> > else {lo plise} fails to refer?
>
> More or less, yes. The problem is that I don't have a good theory = of UD, so
> "if Apple is in the UD" is extremely relative in practice, s= ince it can
> very easily enter or leave the UD as required. For the analysis of log= ical
> forms we don't really need to concern ourselves with those things.=

No, but we do need to put the maximality condition in there if it sh= ould
be there.

For analysis of logical forms= ? I'm not sure we do, since all we need to know is that "lo broda&= quot; is a constant (or a function, if "broda" contains free vari= ables).
=C2=A0
So... are we s= ure it should?

Both forms of the gadri seem useful to me. I have been happily using
{lo} without this maximality presupposition, and I think at least some
of the irci have been too.

I think the = maximality presupposition can't be properly examined without a clear id= ea of how the universe of discourse works. I suspect that the uses you have= in mind as non-maximal with a certain understanding of UD can be reinterpr= eted as maximal with a different understanding of UD. =C2=A0

=
But this goes a long way to explaining why you wanted {lo me ko'a gi= 9;e
broda} for {ko'a poi broda}, where I thought having a maximality
condition would be more natural - you were understanding the maximality
to be implied by the {lo}!

Right.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--001a11342f161aa0340504f0913e--