Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales>
References: <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2djRZbrg-9HH49qPWH=ds4Tnmj+H26o-L9cywiM3jos7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2eqsbpMbYu_m93pq9JEVcCvoSbhsg_hNF3v8=6KAartYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fwYkp_LEiKkHHr6qpQO=b2aT0dBkw275Z8CVaC4KzOmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2ciwFP-OgBw3Z6YH9hyXPpMNR2pN7W15Ac2HsZnAkjd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dy3oYy1F-6tQZqYbDcq30M6wAbP-mmxxMjMdCN8-0DrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 19:56:01 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dmz1QjaUQMJsfm7LFVtrjr2PT_T1eZmHEwoo1-p97WrA@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=f46d04182620d465ef0507247b01
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--f46d04182620d465ef0507247b01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:23 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <
> jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Doesn't (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko'a =3D poi ke'a c=
o'e
> > [tag] ko'a?
>
> CLL has it being less vague, though; e.g. {ko'a pe cu'u ko'e} is meant
> to really be equivalent to {ko'a poi ko'e cusku ke'a}.
>

But doesn't that have to be inferred from context? If ko'a are expressions,
then yes, "ko'a pe cu'u ko'e" will be understood as "ko'a poi ke'a cusku
ko'e", but if ko'e are people, then surely it's more likely to be
understood as "ko'a poi ke'a cusku fi ko'e". It may be that many tags have
an underlying binary relation and so the natural inference is pretty
straightforward, but I think in "ko'a pe [tag] ko'e" the tag only
guarantees the role of ko'e, and the role of ko'a has to be inferred from
the context.

> I think when the tag tags an event as sumti tcita. the relationship
> between
> > (i) and (ii-a) is pretty straightforward:
> >
> > broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda [tag] lo nu brode (for non-tenses)
> >
> > broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i brode [tag] lo nu broda (for tenses)
>
> Concentrating on this tense case:
>
> I don't really see how this {lo nu} would end up working.
>
> e.g. in CLL's {mi klama le zarci .i ba bo mi klama le zdani}, and
> supposing the context is such that there's a specific event of
> market-going involved, presumably that forbids a kind reading of {lo nu
> mi klama le zarci}, and so it will have to be a plural - the
> (contextually relevant) events of my going to the market, of which there
> may be many spread over a large swathe of time. Am I then meant to be
> claiming that my going home is after all such events? Or at least one?
> Or "most" of them?
>
> I would say that the seltcita sumti should specifically involve the
> event(s) involved in the first connectand.
>

Yes, of course, that's what I meant. Change "lo nu broda" to "la'e di'u" if
you prefer, or a more precise reference to the event described by the first
"broda".

> And for non-tenses, by analogy I think it has to be
> >
> > broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i broda [tag] lo nu brode
>
> Did you mean to have a {je} here, and for it to be different from the
> expansion of {broda .i [tag] bo brode} you gave above?
>

I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when a logical
connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though.

> > The only tricky bit is deciding what exactly the seltcita sumti of
> > > the tag should be.
> >
> > "lo nu xu kau broda"., "the event of brodaing or not brodaing, whicheve=
r
> > the case might be".
>
> But which event(s)?
>

The one in question, the one used to evaluate the truth value of the
proposition.


> > Going back a bit, when someone says "carvi" they are not saying "there =
is
> > some event of raining, x, and x happens". They may be saying "c is an
> event
> > of raining and c happens", but not the first. If they were saying the
> > first, there would be no way to negate the claim, because "na carvi"
> would
> > be "there is some event of not raining, x, and x happens", which doesn'=
t
> > contradict the first claim, so "na carvi" would not be the way to negat=
e
> > "carvi".
>
> But in a specific world at a specific time and position, it rains xor
> not-rains, and in either case there's an event of raining / not-raining
> enveloping that particular point. So "some event of not raining happens"
> *is* equivalent, pointwise, to "no event of raining happens".
>

Are you saying that the domain over which "su'o" quantifies will be a
singleton? In that case, using a quantifier is very confusing. If there's
only one event of raining under consideration, then for someone to claim
that at least one event of raining happens instead of saying that the one
event of raining happens is just misleading.


> In other words, we're meant to be within the scope of any quantifiers
> over spacetime/worlds when we make the substitution {broda} <-> {su'o nu
> broda cu fasnu}.
>

If the quantifiers over spacetime/worlds have left us with only one event
to deal with, it makes little sense to quantify over the set of that single
event.

I don't really know what {carvi} means - it depends on how exactly one is
> meant to interpret this idea of "implicit tenses" - but I think that by
> this argument it must be the same as whatever it is that {su'o nu carvi
> cu fasnu} means.
>

I think it must be "lo nu carvi cu fasnu". It's not a claim that there is
some event of raining that occurs (while any other events of raining are
possibly not occurring). The speaker is just describing an event, not
selecting it from many of its kind.

Usually this would be a pretty empty move to make,


I think quantification over singletons is not just a harmless empty move,
it's a misleading move because it pushes us into a universe of discourse
where the domain of quantification is not a singleton.


> but I think it helps
> with these connectives. {broda .i ba bo brode} <-> {da zo'u da nu broda
> kei gi'e fasnu .i bo ba da brode}.
>
> So e.g.
>     ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
>     -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge da
>         fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani
>

I don't have a problem with that quantification, because now we do have
many nu klama lo zarci, so it does makes sense to quantify over them. But I
think the second formulation is just a reasonable inference from the first
rather than a direct logical entailment.

 ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu fasnu gi ba
ko'a mi klama lo zdani

would work just as well, without introducing more events than were there in
the original.

Even if that isn't the best way to formalise it, I feel sure that
> something along these lines must be the right meaning, and that
>     ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge mi klama lo zarci gi ba lo nu mi klama lo
>     zarci kei mi klama lo zdani
> is missing something crucial.
>

If you mean it's missing an explicit indication that the first and second
"mi klama lo zarci" describe the same thing, I would agree. But I don't
believe we need to impute to the original "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama
lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani" a quantification over nu mi klama lo zarci (and
presumably also another one over nu mi klama lo zdani, although you didn't
make that one explicit) just to make that connection.


> > Now, when A says "carvi", we may describe this as "there's some event o=
f
> > raining, x, and A says that x happens", but that's not the same as sayi=
ng
> > "A says that there's some event of raining, x, and x happens".
> > So if by "quantifying over events" you mean that the speaker is
> quantifying
> > over events, I don't see it.
> >
> > If you mean that you can interpret what the speaker is saying by
> > quantifying over events, (i.e. the metalinguistic interpreter does the
> > quantifying, not the speaker) then that may be,
>
> I'm not sure I'm exactly saying either of these. I'm saying that {carvi}
> is equivalent to {su'o nu carvi cu fasnu} in much the same way that it's
> equivalent to {na na carvi} (although with a rather more complicated
> logic involved). So what A says has the meaning of a quantification over
> events.
>

I think if it's equivalent to something like that it would have to be
equivalent to "lo nu carvi cu fasnu" rather than to "su'o nu carvi cu
fasnu".

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.

--f46d04182620d465ef0507247b01
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 Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style=
:solid;padding-left:1ex">* Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:23 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=
=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.com</=
a>&gt;:<br><span class=3D"">&gt;<br>
&gt; Doesn&#39;t (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko&#39;a =3D p=
oi ke&#39;a co&#39;e<br>
&gt; [tag] ko&#39;a?<br>
<br>
</span>CLL has it being less vague, though; e.g. {ko&#39;a pe cu&#39;u ko&#=
39;e} is meant<br>
to really be equivalent to {ko&#39;a poi ko&#39;e cusku ke&#39;a}.<br></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>But doesn&#39;t that have to be inferred from c=
ontext? If ko&#39;a are expressions, then yes, &quot;ko&#39;a pe cu&#39;u k=
o&#39;e&quot; will be understood as &quot;ko&#39;a poi ke&#39;a cusku ko=
9;e&quot;, but if ko&#39;e are people, then surely it&#39;s more likely to =
be understood as &quot;ko&#39;a poi ke&#39;a cusku fi ko&#39;e&quot;. It ma=
y be that many tags have an underlying binary relation and so the natural i=
nference is pretty straightforward, but I think in &quot;ko&#39;a pe [tag] =
ko&#39;e&quot; the tag only guarantees the role of ko&#39;e, and the role o=
f ko&#39;a has to be inferred from the context.</div><div><br></div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-wi=
dth:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; I think when the tag tags an event as sumti tcita. the relationship be=
tween<br>
&gt; (i) and (ii-a) is pretty straightforward:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda [tag] lo nu brode (for non-tenses)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i brode [tag] lo nu broda (for tenses=
)<br>
<br>
</span>Concentrating on this tense case:<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t really see how this {lo nu} would end up working.<br>
<br>
e.g. in CLL&#39;s {mi klama le zarci .i ba bo mi klama le zdani}, and<br>
supposing the context is such that there&#39;s a specific event of<br>
market-going involved, presumably that forbids a kind reading of {lo nu<br>
mi klama le zarci}, and so it will have to be a plural - the<br>
(contextually relevant) events of my going to the market, of which there<br=
>
may be many spread over a large swathe of time. Am I then meant to be<br>
claiming that my going home is after all such events? Or at least one?<br>
Or &quot;most&quot; of them?<br>
<br>
I would say that the seltcita sumti should specifically involve the<br>
event(s) involved in the first connectand.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>Yes, of course, that&#39;s what I meant. Change &quot;lo nu broda&quot;=
 to &quot;la&#39;e di&#39;u&quot; if you prefer, or a more precise referenc=
e to the event described by the first &quot;broda&quot;.</div><div><br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; And for non-tenses, by analogy I think it has to be<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i broda [tag] lo nu brode<br>
<br>
</span>Did you mean to have a {je} here, and for it to be different from th=
e<br>
expansion of {broda .i [tag] bo brode} you gave above?<br></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>I was speculating on what the second proposition would be w=
hen a logical connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense thoug=
h.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bo=
rder-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; &gt; The only tricky bit is deciding what exactly the seltcita sumti o=
f<br>
&gt; &gt; the tag should be.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &quot;lo nu xu kau broda&quot;., &quot;the event of brodaing or not br=
odaing, whichever<br>
&gt; the case might be&quot;.<br>
<br>
</span>But which event(s)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The one in q=
uestion, the one used to evaluate the truth value of the proposition.</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(204,204,204);border-l=
eft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">&gt; Going back a bit, w=
hen someone says &quot;carvi&quot; they are not saying &quot;there is<br>
&gt; some event of raining, x, and x happens&quot;. They may be saying &quo=
t;c is an event<br>
&gt; of raining and c happens&quot;, but not the first. If they were saying=
 the<br>
&gt; first, there would be no way to negate the claim, because &quot;na car=
vi&quot; would<br>
&gt; be &quot;there is some event of not raining, x, and x happens&quot;, w=
hich doesn&#39;t<br>
&gt; contradict the first claim, so &quot;na carvi&quot; would not be the w=
ay to negate<br>
&gt; &quot;carvi&quot;.<br>
<br>
</span>But in a specific world at a specific time and position, it rains xo=
r<br>
not-rains, and in either case there&#39;s an event of raining / not-raining=
<br>
enveloping that particular point. So &quot;some event of not raining happen=
s&quot;<br>
*is* equivalent, pointwise, to &quot;no event of raining happens&quot;.<br>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are you saying that the domain over which =
&quot;su&#39;o&quot; quantifies will be a singleton? In that case, using a =
quantifier is very confusing. If there&#39;s only one event of raining unde=
r consideration, then for someone to claim that at least one event of raini=
ng happens instead of saying that the one event of raining happens is just =
misleading.=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
In other words, we&#39;re meant to be within the scope of any quantifiers<b=
r>
over spacetime/worlds when we make the substitution {broda} &lt;-&gt; {su&#=
39;o nu<br>
broda cu fasnu}.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If the quantifiers ove=
r spacetime/worlds have left us with only one event to deal with, it makes =
little sense to quantify over the set of that single event.=C2=A0</div><div=
><br></div><blockquote 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-st=
yle:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I don&#39;t really know what {carvi} means - it depends on how exactly one =
is<br>
meant to interpret this idea of &quot;implicit tenses&quot; - but I think t=
hat by<br>
this argument it must be the same as whatever it is that {su&#39;o nu carvi=
<br>
cu fasnu} means.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it must be &qu=
ot;lo nu carvi cu fasnu&quot;. It&#39;s not a claim that there is some even=
t of raining that occurs (while any other events of raining are possibly no=
t occurring). The speaker is just describing an event, not selecting it fro=
m many of its kind.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Usually this would be a pretty empty move to make, </blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>I think quantification over singletons is not just a harmless empt=
y move, it&#39;s a misleading move because it pushes us into a universe of =
discourse where the domain of quantification is not a singleton.</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(204,204,204);border-left-s=
tyle:solid;padding-left:1ex">but I think it helps<br>
with these connectives. {broda .i ba bo brode} &lt;-&gt; {da zo&#39;u da nu=
 broda<br>
kei gi&#39;e fasnu .i bo ba da brode}.<br>
<br>
So e.g.<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -&gt; ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo=
9;u ge da<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani<br></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t have a problem with that quantification, =
because now we do have many nu klama lo zarci, so it does makes sense to qu=
antify over them. But I think the second formulation is just a reasonable i=
nference from the first rather than a direct logical entailment.=C2=A0</div=
><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko&#39;a goi lo nu mi k=
lama lo zarci cu fasnu gi ba ko&#39;a mi klama lo zdani</div><div><br></div=
><div>would work just as well, without introducing more events than were th=
ere in the original.</div><div><br></div><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">
Even if that isn&#39;t the best way to formalise it, I feel sure that<br>
something along these lines must be the right meaning, and that<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge mi klama lo zarci gi ba lo nu mi kla=
ma lo<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 zarci kei mi klama lo zdani<br>
is missing something crucial.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you me=
an it&#39;s missing an explicit indication that the first and second &quot;=
mi klama lo zarci&quot; describe the same thing, I would agree. But I don&#=
39;t believe we need to impute to the original &quot;ca ro nu mi xagji kei =
mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani&quot; a quantification over nu mi klama=
 lo zarci (and presumably also another one over nu mi klama lo zdani, altho=
ugh you didn&#39;t make that one explicit) just to make that connection.=C2=
=A0</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(204,204,204)=
;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; Now, when A says &quot;carvi&quot;, we may describe this as &quot;ther=
e&#39;s some event of<br>
&gt; raining, x, and A says that x happens&quot;, but that&#39;s not the sa=
me as saying<br>
&gt; &quot;A says that there&#39;s some event of raining, x, and x happens&=
quot;.<br>
&gt; So if by &quot;quantifying over events&quot; you mean that the speaker=
 is quantifying<br>
&gt; over events, I don&#39;t see it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; If you mean that you can interpret what the speaker is saying by<br>
&gt; quantifying over events, (i.e. the metalinguistic interpreter does the=
<br>
&gt; quantifying, not the speaker) then that may be,<br>
<br>
</span>I&#39;m not sure I&#39;m exactly saying either of these. I&#39;m say=
ing that {carvi}<br>
is equivalent to {su&#39;o nu carvi cu fasnu} in much the same way that it&=
#39;s<br>
equivalent to {na na carvi} (although with a rather more complicated<br>
logic involved). So what A says has the meaning of a quantification over<br=
>
events.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think if it&#39;s equivalent =
to something like that it would have to be equivalent to &quot;lo nu carvi =
cu fasnu&quot; rather than to &quot;su&#39;o nu carvi cu fasnu&quot;.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div><br>=
</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 />

--f46d04182620d465ef0507247b01--