Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales>
References: <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>
	<20141012012427.GF23876@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cFUJamcpRmv1y=Was0tUVrdaZrQ+B8_pVJ+rBd=JiJSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141012173533.GG23876@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2d7nJEczJ7jzMLZBCzUB3ODu42v7Lp0SmsYTYc113r4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:30:34 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fVs8r0cbk_Cvu_TgAf19QA19fmqEFCFbQ=mROqpFvd-Q@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=001a11c3a16ac21b01050568b931
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c3a16ac21b01050568b931
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

So e.g. {la'e ko'a} would typically be a particular thing referred to by
> ko'a according to some particular relevant notion of reference, rather
> than being the collection of all possible referents or the kind
> "referents of ko'a", or rather than requiring restricting the domain to
> exclude all other possible referents.
>

I would have no problem with "lo smuni be di'u" in the same contexts we use
"la'e di'u". I wouldn't say one excludes more or less than the other.

I see what you mean, and I agree it's a worthwhile exercise to express
> the final logical form in lojban using as few constructs as possible;
> but I don't see why this should be done greedily, i.e. first translating
> to minimalistic lojban and then finding the logical form.
>

Just economy of rules I suppose.

We already have a rule to interpret the sumti created with ".e" when it is
used as an argument of a predicate. We can use this same rule if we
interpret LAhE in terms of a predicate. If not, we need a separate rule for
how to interpret the sumti created with ".e" when used as the argument of a
LAhE.


In isolation, I don't see a difference between
>     broda .i brode
> and
>     broda .i je brode
>
> There are differences once other constructs get involved, but I don't
> see how to use that to differentiate between {ju'e} and {e} as sumti
> connectives.
>

Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode" means?

How about:
>
> kukte lo plise .e re lo ci plise noi vi zvati
>
> The idea here is to force some individual apples into the domain, so if
> {lo} is really \iota then {lo plise} can't refer to the kind.


I suppose if "lo" was \iota and you don't allow the universe of discourse
to change then the sentence must be contradictory. But I have no problem
reading it as something like "apples, and two of these three in particular,
are delicious". Maybe more explicitly, for when we tackle UI:

 kukte fa lo plise .e su'a nai re lo ci plise noi vi zvati

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.

--001a11c3a16ac21b01050568b931
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM, 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:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:r=
gb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
So e.g. {la&#39;e ko&#39;a} would typically be a particular thing referred =
to by<br>
ko&#39;a according to some particular relevant notion of reference, rather<=
br>
than being the collection of all possible referents or the kind<br>
&quot;referents of ko&#39;a&quot;, or rather than requiring restricting the=
 domain to<br>
exclude all other possible referents.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I=
 would have no problem with &quot;lo smuni be di&#39;u&quot; in the same co=
ntexts we use &quot;la&#39;e di&#39;u&quot;. I wouldn&#39;t say one exclude=
s more or less than the other.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-le=
ft-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I see w=
hat you mean, and I agree it&#39;s a worthwhile exercise to express<br>
the final logical form in lojban using as few constructs as possible;<br>
but I don&#39;t see why this should be done greedily, i.e. first translatin=
g<br>
to minimalistic lojban and then finding the logical form.<br></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>Just economy of rules I suppose.=C2=A0</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>We already have a rule to interpret the sumti created with &quot;.e=
&quot; when it is used as an argument of a predicate. We can use this same =
rule if we interpret LAhE in terms of a predicate. If not, we need a separa=
te rule for how to interpret the sumti created with &quot;.e&quot; when use=
d as the argument of a LAhE.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-=
width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddin=
g-left:1ex">
In isolation, I don&#39;t see a difference between<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda .i brode<br>
and<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda .i je brode<br>
<br>
There are differences once other constructs get involved, but I don&#39;t<b=
r>
see how to use that to differentiate between {ju&#39;e} and {e} as sumti<br=
>
connectives.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do we even know what &quot=
;na ku zo&#39;u broda .i bo brode&quot; means?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-le=
ft-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">
How about:<br>
<br>
kukte lo plise .e re lo ci plise noi vi zvati<br>
<br>
The idea here is to force some individual apples into the domain, so if<br>
{lo} is really \iota then {lo plise} can&#39;t refer to the kind.</blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I suppose if &quot;lo&quot; was \iota=
 and you don&#39;t allow the universe of discourse to change then the sente=
nce must be contradictory. But I have no problem reading it as something li=
ke &quot;apples, and two of these three in particular, are delicious&quot;.=
 Maybe more explicitly, for when we tackle UI: =C2=A0</div><div><br></div><=
div>=C2=A0kukte fa lo plise .e su&#39;a nai re lo ci plise noi vi zvati</di=
v><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 />

--001a11c3a16ac21b01050568b931--