Received: from mail-wg0-f56.google.com ([74.125.82.56]:44808) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xmqca-0000L5-Bk for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:59:09 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f56.google.com with SMTP id b13sf340074wgh.21 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :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:content-type; bh=kYD0e59yxFcG8jQMtWWBaeowcUHx3MJwxvQmc2o9Y6E=; b=xun6rgxJhHWEIQB7URXXaxHgeTCdebe/iir5yqcIiD31mMCbxlCPdO7hoHOFmljOdV dp5G+H5CYRUoYtb9jIy4IN/o2BmiMj4MOKdQrpFt97Y66EdWiJigdSH8nFmirGitWjKf cBhgPa/75+ETNEUuUK4+3fd+6pJ02Y0b+wrvL2PY7pew5IwDpWM7Q5jBKmaEUO2Ycu0E adlM6f+B5rvn8N9MnowN4CKBylG4esgfqavOrAsH5snTFAsQ22+A2mdisNfyWSAvGnl7 7uR/7Jc2PhFdXFfEhDv2/5VNey7z6kpA32cbgM2WDzJ0dotZSlPn9Bmn+/zYjJ/kcpjs Juwg== X-Received: by 10.180.75.198 with SMTP id e6mr34344wiw.21.1415393937640; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.104.196 with SMTP id gg4ls162389wib.23.canary; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.221.7 with SMTP id qa7mr1057282wic.6.1415393937030; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el8si171117wib.3.2014.11.07.12.58.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234; Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hi2so6034723wib.1 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.77.170 with SMTP id t10mr8671550wiw.57.1415393936929; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:58:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> References: <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales> <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:58:56 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com 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: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d6765d3f90f05074b14c7 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d043d6765d3f90f05074b14c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 at 19:56 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > * Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:23 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > > > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > > > 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 logica= l > > 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? > It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface form. If it's broda we can say things like: mi klama .inaja ki'u bo mi djica If I go it's because I want to. (If I go, then I go because I want to.) mi ba zukte .ijanai ki'u bo mi djica I will do it if it's because I want to. (I will do it if I will do it because I want to.) > > 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-raini= ng > > > 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. > > 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. > I would say that by default we should assume it's one, since it's the simplest option. (But one event can happen more than once.) 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 > from using a quantifier. > If it's just the one, you would normally use "ja'a" and "na", not "su'o" and "no". Using "su'o" or "no" (or any quantifier) strongly suggests to me a non-singleton domain, even if it doesn't logically require one. > > 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 car= vi > > > 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 ar= e > > 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}? > Probably, yes. > > 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 ther= e > 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? > I would say it's a constant. It's the same event that happens more than once. Just as when I say "ca ro nu mi klama lo zarci kei mi penmi la djan" doesn't require it to be the same time-slice of John every time. 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? > No, we would have the event not happening that time. If you allow events to happen more than once, there's no problem with an event happening some times and not others. > > I think if it[{carvi}]'s equivalent to something like that it would hav= e > 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?). > I think it's equivalent in the one-event view: whenever/wherever Mr Nubroda doesn't happen, Mr Nunabroda does, and viceversa. 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. --f46d043d6765d3f90f05074b14c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> = wrote:
* Wednesday, 2014-11-05 at 19:56 -= 0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjll= ambias@gmail.com>:

> 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&= gt;:

> > > 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 logic= al
> connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though.

Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with the<= br> tense case?

It's unintuitive for me= , it doesn't really fit the surface form. If it's broda we can say = things like:

=C2=A0 mi klama .inaja ki'u bo mi= djica
=C2=A0 If I go it's because I want to.
=C2= =A0 (If I go, then I go because I want to.)

=C2=A0= mi ba zukte .ijanai ki'u bo mi djica
=C2=A0 I will do it if = it's because I want to.
=C2=A0 (I will do it if I will do it = because I want to.)


> > 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 / n= ot-raining
> > enveloping that particular point. So "some event of not rain= ing happens"
> > *is* equivalent, pointwise, to "no event of raining happens&= quot;.
>
> Are you saying that the domain over which "su'o" quantif= ies 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 speak= er'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.

= I would say that by default we should assume it's one, since it's t= he simplest option. (But one event can happen more than once.)=C2=A0
<= div>
But even we did have uniqueness, I don't think using {su'o} would b= e
misleading. It isn't that the domain would be a singleton, it's tha= t 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 from using a quantifier.

If it's ju= st the one, you would normally use "ja'a" and "na",= not "su'o" and "no". Using "su'o" or= "no" (or any quantifier) strongly suggests to me a non-singleton= domain, even if it doesn't logically require one.=C2=A0
=C2= =A0

> > I don't really know what {carvi} means - it depends on how ex= actly 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 cl= aim that there is
> some event of raining that occurs (while any other events of raining a= re
> possibly not occurring). The speaker is just describing an event, not<= br> > 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}?

= Probably, yes. =C2=A0

> > So e.g.
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba = bo lo zdani
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama= lo zarci zo'u ge da
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fasnu 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 f= irst
> rather than a direct logical entailment.
>
>=C2=A0 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 the= re 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?

I would say it's a constant. It's the s= ame event that happens more than once. Just as when I say "ca ro nu mi= klama lo zarci kei mi penmi la djan" doesn't require it to be the= same time-slice of John every time.=C2=A0

But letting that pass, and interpreting the {lo} as a function from=C2=A0 n= u
mi xagji=C2=A0 to=C2=A0 nu mi klama lo zarci, what happens when the sentenc= e 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?

No, w= e would have the event not happening that time. If you allow events to happ= en more than once, there's no problem with an event happening some time= s and not others.=C2=A0

=C2=A0
> I think if it[{carvi}]'s equivalent to something like that it woul= d 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?).

<= /div>
I think it's equivalent in the one-event view: whenever/where= ver Mr Nubroda doesn't happen, Mr Nunabroda does, and viceversa.
<= div>
mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--f46d043d6765d3f90f05074b14c7--