Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.72;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
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> <CAO7tK2dEB=OsT6hkw1SRzPMRV6qOm7LpNXapdwKAb8s9y889oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2dEB=OsT6hkw1SRzPMRV6qOm7LpNXapdwKAb8s9y889oA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <7A37A258-BD31-4B3F-A43A-D1530D956E24@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:51:01 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (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=Apple-Mail-6D4B4CA7-5606-41AA-9160-90A4A2B9FB03
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: -0.5
X-Spam_score_int: -4
X-Spam_bar: /

--Apple-Mail-6D4B4CA7-5606-41AA-9160-90A4A2B9FB03
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Salience is not a logical notion, though it enters in to this discussion at=
 some Gricean level.  But so far as logic goes, {lo} is just a function tha=
t returns an object from its range, the complex built on the extension of t=
he assigned predicate (a node in the upward semilattice of among applied to=
 the closure of the extension under part, according to the last guess I saw=
). It has no special properties, in other words, like uniqueness or specifi=
city or .... .  It has no logic of its own, as up and down do, though it ma=
y on occasion mimic at least down (some would say up, too, by I am unconvin=
ced). =20

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 11, 2014, at 11:34, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote=
:

>=20
> 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@g=
mail.com>:
>=20
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > > (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest =
of
> > > LAhE should get it...)
> >
> > Well...
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> It's still the case that "tu'a" places the operators at the minimum of th=
e 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 b=
o" and for "lu'a" the minimum scope seems to be the more useful one. If bas=
ed just on usefulness LAhE would have to be split into different classes wi=
th different logical behaviors.=20
>=20
> 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 tha=
t are both among A and among B, which would require redefining "lu'i" as "l=
o selcmi be ro me", with three potential scope levels just as "tu'a" has, a=
nd with the minimum being the correct one.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> That kind of presupposes that among all the various operators that lingui=
sts/logicians/etc have defined, described, explored there has to be one tha=
t matches "lo". I don't know enough about the subject to give an opinion on=
e way or the other.
>=20
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>=20
>  =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=
 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.

--=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.

--Apple-Mail-6D4B4CA7-5606-41AA-9160-90A4A2B9FB03
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>Salience is not a logical=
 notion, though it enters in to this discussion at some Gricean level. &nbs=
p;But so far as logic goes, {lo} is just a function that returns an object =
from its range, the complex built on the extension of the assigned predicat=
e (a node in the upward semilattice of among applied to the closure of the =
extension under part, according to the last guess I saw). It has no special=
 properties, in other words, like uniqueness or specificity or .... . &nbsp=
;It has no logic of its own, as up and down do, though it may on occasion m=
imic at least down (some would say up, too, by I am unconvinced). &nbsp;<br=
><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Oct 11, 2014, at 11:34, Jorge Llamb=
=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.com</=
a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div d=
ir=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"ma=
ilto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><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 -0300 - Jo=
rge Llamb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gm=
ail.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'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the r=
est 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's best to minimise=
<br>
what irregularity we're forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong<br>
argument, anyway.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's still the case t=
hat "tu'a" places the operators at the minimum of the three scopes availabl=
e 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 m=
inimum scope seems to be the more useful one. If based just on usefulness L=
AhE would have to be split into different classes with different logical be=
haviors.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Or perhaps we need to reevaluate th=
e 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 potent=
ial scope levels just as "tu'a" has, and with 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;padding-left:1ex">
Regarding {lo}: could it be the "down" operator which extracts a kind<br>
from a predicate? I'm not seeing any other options, if it is "definite"<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 "lo". I don=
't know enough about the subject to give an opinion one way or the other.</=
div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">mu'o mi=
'e xorxes</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext=
ra">&nbsp;&nbsp;</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" 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>
</div></blockquote></body></html>

<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 />

--Apple-Mail-6D4B4CA7-5606-41AA-9160-90A4A2B9FB03--