Received: from mail-wg0-f57.google.com ([74.125.82.57]:37268) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xn3M4-000232-Bg for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:35:02 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f57.google.com with SMTP id z12sf388353wgg.2 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:45 -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=NwK18LmnfoIkvrMfdaSJiJ6rJCNzFxpAVctGtYjgkTI=; b=JMWskBL+sXRK1V00odgFH7+kjavTXEgu5+VqrvUtiQcEp/4odClw1h80/8tYTo54a0 Co/Sp35Q1T7a+tyrFxn4QZIRkcme8g49EdfXvkZDBWfzAqJ9V6i8tzBV79PzE+DGk5NA uvDbhXpjtToBxvnK1YLMQ2QonAjhdyYvWmRB2Ykmx+NlCl43vXcIT5L30GqmR1fYaTYr wE4jWEz7NOapgGiB4mqF+KYsZUxi8ReEXxjjKpUhQdhrKX5DvBCtlG2MdI3zMZXI0Yy5 NV7aeqowHpioVeD5lBIBHE05/HbEBEHOuA3AZUO075G7861lcmmltOPMGNrWWsmc+Dcu g0TA== X-Received: by 10.180.10.36 with SMTP id f4mr46259wib.6.1415442885875; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:45 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.182.134 with SMTP id ee6ls664147wic.1.gmail; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.176.106 with SMTP id ch10mr279312wjc.6.1415442884813; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gk3si266651wib.1.2014.11.08.02.34.44 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231; Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ex7so6634031wid.10 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.186.207 with SMTP id fm15mr25279812wjc.1.1415442884532; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.103.65 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 02:34:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales> <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales> <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 13:34:44 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: Gleki Arxokuna To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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=047d7beb91025522d30507567ab1 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7beb91025522d30507567ab1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2014-11-06 1:56 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas : > > 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>: >> > >> > 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? If ko'a are > expressions, then yes, "ko'a pe cu'u ko'e" will be understood as "ko'a po= i > 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. > In {mi nelci ko'a ne semau ko'e} isn't {ne semau} always expanded into {noi ke'a no'a semau ko'e}? > > 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". > isnt' la'edi'u refer to the previous utterance, not to the immediately preceding main clause? > > > 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, whichev= er >> > 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 nega= te >> > "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 sing= le > 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 firs= t > 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 (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. > > >> > Now, when A says "carvi", we may describe this as "there's some event = of >> > raining, x, and A says that x happens", but that's not the same as >> saying >> > "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 > > > -- > 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. > --=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. --047d7beb91025522d30507567ab1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2014-11-06 1:56 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com= >:

On Wed,= Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
=
* Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:23 -03= 00 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> Doesn't (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko'a =3D p= oi ke'a co'e
> [tag] ko'a?

CLL has it being less vague, though; e.g. {k= o'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&= #39;u ko'e" will be understood as "ko'a poi ke'a cusk= u ko'e", but if ko'e are people, then surely it's more lik= ely 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 na= tural 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.

In {mi nelci ko'a ne semau ko'e= } isn't {ne semau} always expanded into {noi ke'a no'a semau ko= 'e}?


> I think when the tag tags an event as sumti tcita. the relationship be= tween
> (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.

<= /span>
Yes, of course, that's what I meant. Change "lo nu brod= a" to "la'e di'u" if you prefer, or a more precise r= eference to the event described by the first "broda".
=

isnt' la'edi'u ref= er to the previous utterance, not to the immediately preceding main clause?= =C2=A0

> 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 th= e
expansion of {broda .i [tag] bo brode} you gave above?

I was speculating on what the second proposition wou= ld be when a logical connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sens= e though.

> > The only tricky bit is deciding what exactly the seltcita sumti o= f
> > the tag should be.
>
> "lo nu xu kau broda"., "the event of brodaing or not br= odaing, whichever
> the case might be".

But which event(s)?

The o= ne in question, the one used to evaluate the truth value of the proposition= .
=C2=A0
> Going = back a bit, when someone says "carvi" they are not saying "t= here is
> some event of raining, x, and x happens". They may be saying &quo= t;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 car= vi" would
> be "there is some event of not raining, x, and x happens", w= hich doesn't
> contradict the first claim, so "na carvi" would not be the w= ay to negate
> "carvi".

But in a specific world at a specific time and position, it rains xo= r
not-rains, and in either case there's an event of raining / not-raining=
enveloping that particular point. So "some event of not raining happen= s"
*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, u= sing a quantifier is very confusing. If there's only one event of raini= ng under consideration, then for someone to claim that at least one event o= f raining happens instead of saying that the one event of raining happens i= s just misleading.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
In other words, we're meant to be within the scope of any quantifiers over spacetime/worlds when we make the substitution {broda} <-> {su&#= 39;o nu
broda cu fasnu}.

If the quantifi= ers 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.=C2=A0

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 t= hat 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 so= me event of raining that occurs (while any other events of raining are poss= ibly 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 harmle= ss empty move, it's a misleading move because it pushes us into a unive= rse of discourse where the domain of quantification is not a singleton.
=C2=A0
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.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo= 9;u ge da
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani

I don't have a problem with that quantific= ation, because now we do have many nu klama lo zarci, so it does makes sens= e to quantify over them. But I think the second formulation is just a reaso= nable inference from the first rather than a direct logical entailment.=C2= =A0

=C2=A0ca 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
<= br>
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
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge mi klama lo zarci gi ba lo nu mi kla= ma lo
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 xag= ji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani" a quantification over nu m= i 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 connect= ion.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
> Now, when A says "carvi", we may describe this as "ther= e's some event of
> raining, x, and A says that x happens", but that's not the sa= me as saying
> "A says that there's some event of raining, x, and x happens&= quot;.
> 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 say= ing that {carvi}
is equivalent to {su'o nu carvi cu fasnu} in much the same way that it&= #39;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 equi= valent 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
<= div>

--
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+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.

--
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.
--047d7beb91025522d30507567ab1--