Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6ED7B680-2BE9-40F9-8329-21E063EDF2BB@yahoo.com>
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>
	<CAO7bV+hp0WVAjiV6RnUVyRnAoY6a9g4q262DtUjW-Dx8C22dVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2eNDBoZMb0cfPSL=WD93HYCuYMtjdcj_APOMhX0pzD-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ezx1s9UJxiqBeeM6jHOH=OCzo=oRZhyjFMxk2AqaB5-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<930D4F65-7C22-48E1-9B55-4B9A3C81CF37@yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2fVFDvq_t6oojQcnuu1zApfVx=J2yQS9DCtrwf2CD1D8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<C37A0704-29FA-4C0B-8F13-47ED7EA9F2A3@yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2eewFpXOQrh2fz_dGbcg3+Ygd_T-efeSmb95VWfZ=T=Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ED7B680-2BE9-40F9-8329-21E063EDF2BB@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:34:56 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fFhBMNb3iTJLX0iem243ieY85+bALTCswvSMdA2FEs_w@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=089e011604e8d9517605052c6ff3
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--089e011604e8d9517605052c6ff3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:42 PM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Well, I am not too sure about the distinction between singular {ci} and
> plural, which plural reference was supposed to solve but managed to
> multiply.
>

With singular "ci", you try all the values from the domain as arguments of
the quantified bridi one at a time, and the quantifier says that it will
come out true for exactly three of those tries.

With one version of plural "ci", you try the values three at a time, and
the quantifier says it will come out true at least once.

With another version of plural "ci", you try the values three at a time,
and the quantifier says it will come out true exactly once.

With yet another version, you try the values in all possible combinations
any number at a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true exactly
three times.

There may be other versions of plural "ci", I don't know, but I think the
useful one is the first one.


>  Still, there does seem to be a problem here.  I thought that perhaps we
> had the set "For three men, I want them to run", "I want three men for to
> run" and "I want for three men to run'.  But the second was still suspect,
> since it seemed to need another {tu'a} to come out right.
>

Perhaps making use of the always forgotten third place of "djica": although
that might then involve donkey-sentencing.


>  Another possibility is that, since these levels are generated by places
> where a matrix is inserted, that the relevant level here is not such a case
> even though treated as the same in Lojban.  That is, referring to an event
> or proposition is not a case of picking a salient object with the property
> of being an event or proposition, but a different sort of move, as it
> typically is in logic: not /x^p^x, but simply ^p^.  This removes the
> opportunity for another quantifier, if I have got the pattern down.
>

Yes, but you could always add it back with "lo me".


>  {ci da zo'u mi djica du'u (I would have thought nu, but my theology is
> happier with propositions anyhow) da co'e}  vs {mi djica du'u ci da co'e}
> with no other places to put in quantifier.  All very unLojbanic, of course,
> but we're well past that objection by now.
>

That has been debated before. It was never very clear to me why NU was
chosen to transform a bridi into a selbri rather than into a sumti, which
is where the overwhelming majority of their use is. So instead of using "lo
NU" all the time we would only have needed to use "me NU" in the relatively
rare occasions when a selbri is wanted.

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.

--089e011604e8d9517605052c6ff3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:42 PM, &#39;John E. Clifford&#39; via lojban =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>Well, I am not too sure about the distinction=
 between singular {ci} and plural, which plural reference was supposed to s=
olve but managed to multiply. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
With singular &quot;ci&quot;, you try all the values from the domain as arg=
uments of the quantified bridi one at a time, and the quantifier says that =
it will come out true for exactly three of those tries.</div><div><br></div=
><div>With one version of plural &quot;ci&quot;, you try the values three a=
t a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true at least once.</div=
><div><br></div><div>With another version of plural &quot;ci&quot;, you try=
 the values three at a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true =
exactly once.</div><div><br></div><div>With yet another version, you try th=
e values in all possible combinations any number at a time, and the quantif=
ier says it will come out true exactly three times.</div><div><br></div><di=
v>There may be other versions of plural &quot;ci&quot;, I don&#39;t know, b=
ut I think the useful one is the first one.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-widt=
h:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>=C2=A0Still, there does seem to be a =
problem here.=C2=A0 I thought that perhaps we had the set &quot;For three m=
en, I want them to run&quot;, &quot;I want three men for to run&quot; and &=
quot;I want for three men to run&#39;.=C2=A0 But the second was still suspe=
ct, since it seemed to need another {tu&#39;a} to come out right.</div></di=
v></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps making use of the always forgott=
en third place of &quot;djica&quot;: although that might then involve donke=
y-sentencing.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(20=
4,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFF=
F"><div> =C2=A0Another possibility is that, since these levels are generate=
d by places where a matrix is inserted, that the relevant level here is not=
 such a case even though treated as the same in Lojban.=C2=A0 That is, refe=
rring to an event or proposition is not a case of picking a salient object =
with the property of being an event or proposition, but a different sort of=
 move, as it typically is in logic: not /x^p^x, but simply ^p^.=C2=A0 This =
removes the opportunity for another quantifier, if I have got the pattern d=
own. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but you could always=
 add it back with &quot;lo me&quot;.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;b=
order-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>=C2=A0{ci da zo&#39;u mi djica du&#39;u (I w=
ould have thought nu, but my theology is happier with propositions anyhow) =
da co&#39;e} =C2=A0vs {mi djica du&#39;u ci da co&#39;e} with no other plac=
es to put in quantifier.=C2=A0 All very unLojbanic, of course, but we&#39;r=
e well past that objection by now.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>That has been debated before. It was never very clear to me why NU was =
chosen to transform a bridi into a selbri rather than into a sumti, which i=
s where the overwhelming majority of their use is. So instead of using &quo=
t;lo NU&quot; all the time we would only have needed to use &quot;me NU&quo=
t; in the relatively rare occasions when a selbri is wanted.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></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 />

--089e011604e8d9517605052c6ff3--