Received: from mail-ee0-f62.google.com ([74.125.83.62]:52396) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xcl6H-0006iQ-IX for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:04:06 -0700 Received: by mail-ee0-f62.google.com with SMTP id c13sf438800eek.7 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -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=Yil/cKGVVSh/Quj8bzNS9pP8IIOBSJrUB4vq5cEU3gI=; b=YvlRe1gJbkJP1uwQfCpJmYoh8EhM8VCch2yBjMm8h/a7/nHSyo0J9H8qWomVOIuRxd HB3QRTykaMol1lNRfIRStxBgwSUlDaWsrlAQyZPZ0lN1RV/tZxoViuZkG2D2srjnqy5d 5ZF//chWSwfofwmsdeVCVvDOvGzgajSxEK36F5oxucESU+NARLQx+wn0cNexwwv/ViFn HhdeCcYntzcOLGoJz1a9DTrbYGBdcuuVHkgDEgMEbxSmpXYnvr6gNwU/w3zm5C86jfgp ddlVi8KZ4v5zZ8cEsSNSmyxPM8elmWEM4bJ9nLxdeTX3s6vkXqkgOm8kp6/BJ2RkA64c I1BA== X-Received: by 10.180.208.99 with SMTP id md3mr58503wic.17.1412989434613; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.106.40 with SMTP id gr8ls187386wib.14.canary; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.8.197 with SMTP id t5mr1634551wia.5.1412989434210; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si559856lbb.0.2014.10.10.18.03.54 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::230; Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gi9so4150439lab.21 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.130.41 with SMTP id ob9mr8293867lbb.12.1412989434047; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.61.107 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:03:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141010234033.GG22868@gonzales> References: <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales> <20141006025048.GE1974@gonzales> <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> <20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales> <20141009233031.GC1592@gonzales> <20141010234033.GG22868@gonzales> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:03:53 -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:c03::230 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=047d7b342ba649b28505051b3d9d X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7b342ba649b28505051b3d9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > OK. I don't really understand why opaqueness is so clearly preferable > - but perhaps this is a matter of wisdom born from years of usage, which > I shouldn't expect to understand. > The need for opaque contexts was the main reason for "tu'a" to exist, so you could say "mi nitcu tu'a su'o mikce" without claiming that there's a doctor such that you need them. Now at least sometimes, we seem forced into a kind reading of the iota; > e.g. if {tu'a}(x,y) means something like "x is an abstraction involving > y", then in {broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e} we seem forced to a kind reading: > "abstractions involving ko'a and involving ko'e". > The usual expansion for "tu'a X" is actually "lo du'u X co'e" and so you would get "lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e". So "tu'a(x,y)" doesn't really mean "x is an abstraction involving y" but "x is the (one and only) proposition that y satisfies the obvious-from-context predicate". Several issues with that, but maximality would presumably not be one of them. One complication is that sometimes "tu'a" is used to stand for other NUs, but even if it was just "du'u" this is not exactly a vanilla "lo broda be" as we were thinking for other LAhE, so maybe "tu'a" is something of an anomaly, like "fa'u" for the JOIs. > Example where both readings are actually plausible: > mi xebni na'e bo mi > could mean either "I hate everything other than me" or "I hate things > other than me". > > The problem you're having doesn't seem to be specifically about "na'e bo", it will happen with any "lo broda", which could be "all the brodas" or just the generic/kind "brodas". So maybe {lo} == \iota == "the largest" isn't really right after all? > pc prefers "the most salient". I think how we describe it is mostly a matter of how much of the burden we want to put on this operator and how much on the determination of the universe of discourse. > > > So rather than representing {lo broda cu brode} as > > > Presupposition: broda(c1) > > > brode(c1) > > > could we then just represent it as > > > brode(\iota broda(_))? > > > > > > That would make me happy. > > > > How would you express it in Lojban? > > As {lo broda cu brode}! > > \iota x. P(x) <-> lo poi'i P > is what I was hoping for. OK, so "lo" is primitive and you need to introduce "poi'i" to deal with the mechanics. I don't have a problem with that presentation. > (Hopefully nothing involving mekso. :) > > {li mo'e lo nu'a na'u broda} does have a certain ring to it, now you > mention it... > That's perfect. 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. --047d7b342ba649b28505051b3d9d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

OK. I don't really understand why opaqueness is so clearly prefe= rable
- but perhaps this is a matter of wisdom born from years of usage, which I shouldn't expect to understand.

T= he need for opaque contexts was the main reason for "tu'a" to= exist, so you could say "mi nitcu tu'a su'o mikce" witho= ut claiming that there's a doctor such that you need them.
Now at least sometimes, we seem forced into a kind reading of the iota;
e.g. if {tu'a}(x,y) means something like "x is an abstraction invo= lving
y", then in {broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e} we seem forced to a = kind reading:
"abstractions involving ko'a and involving ko'e".

The usual expansion for "tu'a X"= is actually "lo du'u X co'e" and so you would get "= lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e". So "tu'a(x,y)&quo= t; doesn't really mean "x is an abstraction involving y" but = "x is the (one and only) proposition that y satisfies the obvious-from= -context predicate". Several issues with that, but maximality would pr= esumably not be one of them. One complication is that sometimes "tu= 9;a" is used to stand for other NUs, but even if it was just "du&= #39;u" this is not exactly a vanilla "lo broda be" as we wer= e thinking for other LAhE, so maybe "tu'a" is something of an= anomaly, like "fa'u" for the JOIs.=C2=A0


Example where both readings are actually plausible:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 mi xebni na'e bo mi
could mean either "I hate everything other than me" or "I ha= te things
other than me".

The problem you're having doesn't seem to be = specifically about "na'e bo", it will happen with any "l= o broda", which could be "all the brodas" or just the generi= c/kind "brodas".=C2=A0

So maybe {lo} =3D=3D \iota =3D=3D "the largest" isn't really = right after all?

pc prefers "the m= ost salient". I think how we describe it is mostly a matter of how muc= h of the burden we want to put on this operator and how much on the determi= nation of the universe of discourse.

=
> > So rather than representing {lo broda cu brode} as
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Presupposition: broda(c1)
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0brode(c1)
> > could we then just represent it as
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0brode(\iota broda(_))?
> >
> > That would make me happy.
>
> How would you express it in Lojban?

As {lo broda cu brode}!

\iota x. P(x)=C2=A0 <->=C2=A0 lo poi'i P
is what I was hoping for.

OK, so "lo&q= uot; is primitive and you need to introduce "poi'i" to deal w= ith the mechanics. I don't have a problem with that presentation.
=

> (Hopefully nothing involving mekso. :)

{li mo'e lo nu'a na'u broda} does have a certain ring to= it, now you
mention it...

That's perfect.
=

mu'o mi'e xorxes
=C2=A0

--
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.
--047d7b342ba649b28505051b3d9d--