Received: from mail-ob0-f190.google.com ([209.85.214.190]:47989) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XmWUZ-0000Na-PG for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:32 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f190.google.com with SMTP id m8sf272996obr.17 for ; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=hhqSrbCxuH/5BHFkX7//uD6Z9ui3NyJJWipxxuV3JWg=; b=VrotvxOHq5ZzYKwRRgDm2GpBDpQtKNjd0VyHBABIo6dmf9tykxXD1wuNSI5E+dhzX4 vazDQSOGFLAUqQYOhgzpddWGaTuaHRwLJ2iZc2BJRhl5v4MrLuiDvxaQYpiwX0c98yzU m/zZFeAtN7x3iTx5WyI8mJ9pVB+dmvgknvSunsK0ggSQSQJbIp1IIixJxEQLCz+EfPb1 fsKY7sbF2Znb4C5qtL21a/uAI9njvXCK/NaaGNXMdgSKsjHXqcNhca0jkVQbdK1GNNKU +1SnSR01NPo+ok19V+U6qfg1p+/+9U6h9facG0Iy/b899fa3wVdX2Qs9s9hGjlFMtLBv PmtQ== X-Received: by 10.182.20.243 with SMTP id q19mr2326obe.38.1415316561242; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.149.195 with SMTP id uc3ls223792obb.21.gmail; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.91.79 with SMTP id cc15mr6181218obb.31.1415316560862; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.24]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pk7si993222pbc.2.2014.11.06.15.29.20 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24; Received: from thegonz.net (d24-141-9-29.home.cgocable.net [24.141.9.29]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA6NT6Cv004676 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO) for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:29:08 GMT Received: from martin by thegonz.net with local (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XmWTS-000487-FK for lojban@googlegroups.com; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:28:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:28:18 -0500 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 Message-ID: <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> References: <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales> <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: jamna User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 at 19:56 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > * Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:23 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas < > > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > Doesn't (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko'a =3D poi ke'a= co'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? > [...] 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. You're right, we can just read CLL as happening to pick examples where there's an obvious devaguing. OK, good. Then we should aim to reduce everything to (i)! This does seem to be where we're headed. > > > broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i brode [tag] lo nu broda (for tense= s) > > I don't really see how this {lo nu} would end up working. > > I would say that the seltcita sumti should specifically involve the > > event(s) involved in the first connectand. >=20 > 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 fir= st > "broda". Aha, OK. Then I think we essentially agree - I'm just trying to find a precise way to get at this notion of "the event". > > > 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? >=20 > I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when a logical > connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though. Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with the tense case? > > 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". >=20 > Are you saying that the domain over which "su'o" quantifies will be a > singleton? In that case, using a quantifier is very confusing. Well, I suppose that depends on exactly how events work in the speaker's ontology. If it's raining somewhere somewhen, must there be a unique event witnessing that? Or could there be many events - an event of it raining precisely there then, another of it raining in that locale in that rough time period, a general one representing this being a rainy planet, and so on? Must only one of these be in the domain of discourse? I don't think we should assume so. But even we did have uniqueness, I don't think using {su'o} would be misleading. It isn't that the domain would be a singleton, it's that it would be empty or a singleton. You could use {pa} rather than {su'o} to emphasise the singularity in the latter case, but you can't get away =66rom using a quantifier. > > 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. >=20 > 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. This may be a side-issue, but again I don't see how {lo nu} gets you this meaning, assuming {lo} is \iota. I guess here you really do mean something more like {zo'e noi nu}? > > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > would work just as well, without introducing more events than were there = in > the original. But then we have a use of {lo} which isn't constant with respect to the universal quantifier. I thought we didn't want to allow those? But letting that pass, and interpreting the {lo} as a function from nu mi xagji to nu mi klama lo zarci, what happens when the sentence is false because there was some time I was hungry but didn't go to the market (through laziness or foresight)? Are we to have some arbitrary non-occurring event of going to the market to be the value of the function at that event of hunger? I don't see how this is to work. Something which comes closer to working, actually, is to have {lo} be \iota but to have the fasnu be part of the {lo} phrase: ca ro nu mi xagji kei ba lo poi'i nu mi klama lo zarci kei gi'e fasnu ku mi klama lo zdani But that can't actually work, because of the presupposition invoked by \iota; when the sentence is false for the reason described above, the presupposition will be incorrect. We could fix that by adding a {xu kau} to the nu, but that wouldn't give the right semantics at all (right?). > > 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. >=20 > 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 (a= nd > presumably also another one over nu mi klama lo zdani, although you didn't > make that one explicit) just to make that connection. I'd like to see another way! Really, I would. We need something which gives the correct meaning even when the tensed connection is buried deep in the logical structure of the sentence, and currently I don't see a way to do that without quantifiers. > I think if it[{carvi}]'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". If {lo} here is {zo'e noi}, it doesn't really make sense to talk about them being equivalent. If it's \iota or something similarly definite, I think we can use your argument to see {broda} can't really be equivalent to {lo nu broda cu fasnu}: if it were, then by considering {na broda} we get that {lo nu broda cu na fasnu} is equivalent to {lo nu na broda cu fasnu}, which it isn't (right?). Martin --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlRcBBEACgkQULC7OLX7LNZJIgCeLg3VNniJgq1rTbdBK+J4bkX1 lpwAn3EE172KEHKeqpBQ3gvtr2lCOLTu =hCjc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/--