Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141011143749.GD23876@gonzales>
References: <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fokLXQ3queR+jP88xaoxMPQBQUojsAOZrF49hKTY=-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2erLDXJy5jOAx7--+vamH9brWJNSH2K82ACJgKbDVvD8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141009233031.GC1592@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cpdLRm8AOtHjADMKMP10uFu_N4mfddsP0-q07YnFzSLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141010234033.GG22868@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dXyFzuCiv3g18B2poF3YZwE4RQFTTvdfXGVXuycWmLyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141011021201.GH22868@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2c_S3hC5K3eqSkmFjzZT4F5BRFLJ_+X44N212sygj_VGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141011143749.GD23876@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 13:34:57 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dEB=OsT6hkw1SRzPMRV6qOm7LpNXapdwKAb8s9y889oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
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=089e0158c5aa0566f30505283fce
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--089e0158c5aa0566f30505283fce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 08:58 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <
> jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > > (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest =
of
> > > LAhE should get it...)
> >
> > Well...
>
> By which you mean it kind of still is, because it's best to minimise
> what irregularity we're forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong
> argument, anyway.
>

It's still the case that "tu'a" places the operators at the minimum of the
three scopes available to it, so it's reasonable for the others to place
them at the minimum of the two scopes they have available. Also for "na'e
bo" and for "lu'a" the minimum scope seems to be the more useful one. If
based just on usefulness LAhE would have to be split into different classes
with different logical behaviors.

Or perhaps we need to reevaluate the definition of some of these LAhEs. I
wouldn't mind for example making "lu'i A .e B" the set of those things that
are both among A and among B, which would require redefining "lu'i" as "lo
selcmi be ro me", with three potential scope levels just as "tu'a" has, and
with the minimum being the correct one.

Regarding {lo}: could it be the "down" operator which extracts a kind
> from a predicate? I'm not seeing any other options, if it is "definite"
> and if \iota is out.
>

That kind of presupposes that among all the various operators that
linguists/logicians/etc have defined, described, explored there has to be
one that matches "lo". I don't know enough about the subject to give an
opinion one way or the other.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.

--089e0158c5aa0566f30505283fce
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 08:58 -030=
0 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllamb=
ias@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt; On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mb=
ays@sdf.org">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></span><span class=3D""><br>
&gt; &gt; (So then tu&#39;a needing opacity is no longer an argument that t=
he rest of<br>
&gt; &gt; LAhE should get it...)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Well...<br>
<br>
</span>By which you mean it kind of still is, because it&#39;s best to mini=
mise<br>
what irregularity we&#39;re forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong<br>
argument, anyway.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s still the ca=
se that &quot;tu&#39;a&quot; places the operators at the minimum of the thr=
ee scopes available to it, so it&#39;s reasonable for the others to place t=
hem at the minimum of the two scopes they have available. Also for &quot;na=
&#39;e bo&quot; and for &quot;lu&#39;a&quot; the minimum scope seems to be =
the more useful one. If based just on usefulness LAhE would have to be spli=
t into different classes with different logical behaviors.=C2=A0</div><div>=
<br></div><div>Or perhaps we need to reevaluate the definition of some of t=
hese LAhEs. I wouldn&#39;t mind for example making &quot;lu&#39;i A .e B&qu=
ot; the set of those things that are both among A and among B, which would =
require redefining &quot;lu&#39;i&quot; as &quot;lo selcmi be ro me&quot;, =
with three potential scope levels just as &quot;tu&#39;a&quot; has, and wit=
h the minimum being the correct one.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">
Regarding {lo}: could it be the &quot;down&quot; operator which extracts a =
kind<br>
from a predicate? I&#39;m not seeing any other options, if it is &quot;defi=
nite&quot;<br>
and if \iota is out.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">That kind of presup=
poses that among all the various operators that linguists/logicians/etc hav=
e defined, described, explored there has to be one that matches &quot;lo&qu=
ot;. I don&#39;t know enough about the subject to give an opinion one way o=
r the other.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra">mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra">=C2=A0=C2=A0</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 />

--089e0158c5aa0566f30505283fce--