Received: from mail-ee0-f64.google.com ([74.125.83.64]:34821) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XqqF9-0008KY-G9 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:25 -0800 Received: by mail-ee0-f64.google.com with SMTP id e51sf200513eek.29 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -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=FnJjgEv2+Uuaxdzxa1JBIid+vtgxta06WD8NsVIowrY=; b=vDTCNzqEHdIlCyGvjqrpPNljBB645pJ4ONJ9gUM/pOIdPpvk+IN/FOG5rk1ZVATFDR dwxPTD6MrzaE4hOdsEHA2kVRGAiDAMsbwSANkLto/3l/7BurmmzMHGCq842KOI4jcnmA mQNgML43D2+wakDV7TbMF+fMNqAqUCxvwXcy8BbqbNlz9xG2fwR6PKqYBowl6KDhlnhr StYCn3h6VaWZqiHh7gP6haTDETi6iQKxNXllBvJxjSU7z8XOfkktly1dHVKuWQS7v4vk lMDvUfC70acJBhVqy/KfeN/Gfc6vvwvYHeCnW+gQPRKDuZXq5IL7o8mgklEgOywZ1Bpa MFng== X-Received: by 10.180.104.226 with SMTP id gh2mr76588wib.13.1416345796741; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.206.17 with SMTP id lk17ls1133468wic.45.gmail; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.37.105 with SMTP id x9mr3930101wij.7.1416345796279; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sg7si2407060lbb.1.2014.11.18.13.23.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a; Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so9668571lbi.29 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.7.71 with SMTP id h7mr1469518laa.68.1416345796135; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.111 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:23:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales> References: <20141109161417.GE8588@gonzales> <20141109192217.GH8588@gonzales> <20141109215830.GB30874@gonzales> <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales> <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales> <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:23:15 -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 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a 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=001a11c28fa00ed0f8050828b4fc X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c28fa00ed0f8050828b4fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Aside: > The kind "going shopping" isn't a going shopping, surely? > In a metalinguistic universe of discourse that contains both a kind and the instances of the kind (i.e. not the universe of discourse of our speaker), then I would say that the kind is not one of its instances, no. But if the question is whether the referent of "lo nu klama lo zarci" satisfies the predicate "nu klama lo zarci", then surely the answer must be yes. That there's no easy way in lojban to differentiate between going > shopping and goings shopping is a real problem, I feel. > I think the distinction is necessarily metalinguistic, so no linguistic differentiation would really help. There's no problem having predicates that mean "kind", "instance", their relation, relation between them and a property, and so on, but these predicates would only be mostly useful for linguistic analysis, i.e. for metalinguistic discourse, not particularly useful to say something directly, because as soon as you introduce them into the discourse, there will be other metalinguistic kinds/instances that apply to these linguistic ones. Is claiming that an event-kind occurs at a particular time not > equivalent to claiming that an event instance of the kind occurs at that > time? > Your second claim may be ambiguous. Do you mean claiming that there's an instance that occurs, or do you mean there being an instance of which one claims that it occurs? The universe of discourse that contains instances is richer, which means it allows you to make more fine distinctions, but it also forces you to make these distinctions. The coarser grained universe of discorse with kinds doesn't allow/force these distinctions. Could you clarify something else for me about the kinds translation: > if ko'a and ko'i are event-kinds, does {ca ko'u ko'a balvi ko'i} imply > {ca ko'u ko'a .e ko'i fasnu}? > Probably. That would depend on the details of the semantics of "balvi", which being a time relation is of course tricky to tense. But to make sense of it, ko'u would probably have to be long enough for ko'i to occur and then ko'a to occur at ko'u. Say something like "this spring the swallows came after school started". ko'u = this spring ko'a = the swallows come ko'i = school starts If so, why also explicitly declare ko'a to fasnu? But if not, I think > the kinds translation's meaning might be quite different from that > I attribute to the original sentence. > I'm thinking the first connectand is independent of the tag-carrying connectand. The tag-carrying connectand might also imply the first connectand, but that's not necessarily the case for all tags. Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'e ba bo > brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba > brode}. > Yes, but ba what? "ba ko'u" or "ba lo nu broda"? > Another point against the quantifier reading is that if you change ".e ba > > bo" to "na .a ba bo", then we would seem to need to change "su'o" to "ro" > > in the quantified expansion: "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci na > .a > > ba bo lo zdani" -> "ca ro nu mi xagji kei ro da poi nu mi klama lo zarci > > zo'u ga nai da fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani" or something like that, > > whereas with the kind-reading you use the same expansion "ca ro nu mi > xagji > > kei ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ga nai ko'a fasnu gi ba ko'a mi > > klama lo zdani". > > Interesting. So this is like a literal translation of "if I go to the > market, after going to the market I go home", analysing "going to the > market" as a reference to a kind rather than as a reference to a witness > going in the antecedent? > It's what one would have to say in a more fine grained universe containing instances, but it's not a direct translation in the sense that a direct translation I think would have to be based on the same universe of discourse. > So you now prefer this approach to your previous suggestion of using > {nu na broda} when analysing {broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode}? > I'm not very committed to anything at this point. I'm only saying that given the choice between the "lo nu"-version and the "su'o nu"-version I would go with the "lo nu"-version. broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode -> broda .i [jek] [tag] lo nu (na) broda cu brode sounds reasonable to me for tenses. The "(na)" doesn't really kick in for "je" or for "naja", so these two examples don't cover all cases. For non-tenses I want to read it as: broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode -> broda .i [jek] broda [tag] lo nu brode but that may be even more problematic for "jonai" type connectives. So I guess this kind of reasoning would have > {broda .i je nai ca bo brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but > broda never occurs simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have > expected it to mean something more like "broda occurs some time when > brodo doesn't". > I hope you are not thinking that by rejecting an equivalence of "lo" with "su'o" I'm somehow embracing an equivalence with "ro". "lo" is neither "su'o" nor "ro" (or it is both), because "lo" sees all instances as one, so there's no distinction to be made between "su'o" and "ro" in this coarse grained view. I think it just means "broda occurs, but not simultaneously with brodo". 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. --001a11c28fa00ed0f8050828b4fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

Aside:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The kind "going shopping" isn't a going shoppin= g, surely?

In a metalinguistic universe= of discourse that contains both a kind and the instances of the kind (i.e.= not the universe of discourse of our speaker), then I would say that the k= ind is not one of its instances, no. But if the question is whether the ref= erent of "lo nu klama lo zarci" satisfies the predicate "nu = klama lo zarci", then surely the answer must be yes.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 That there's no easy way in lojban to differentiate betwe= en going
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 shopping and goings shopping is a real problem, I feel.

I think the distinction is necessarily metal= inguistic, so no linguistic differentiation would really help. There's = no problem having predicates that mean "kind", "instance&quo= t;, their relation, relation between them and a property, and so on, but th= ese predicates would only be mostly useful for linguistic analysis, i.e. fo= r metalinguistic discourse, not particularly useful to say something direct= ly, because as soon as you introduce them into the discourse, there will be= other metalinguistic kinds/instances that apply to these linguistic ones.= =C2=A0

Is claiming that an event-kind occurs at a particular time not
equivalent to claiming that an event instance of the kind occurs at that time?

Your second claim may be ambiguou= s. Do you mean claiming that there's an instance that occurs, or do you= mean there being an instance of which one claims that it occurs? The unive= rse of discourse that contains instances is richer, which means it allows y= ou to make more fine distinctions, but it also forces you to make these dis= tinctions. The coarser grained universe of discorse with kinds doesn't = allow/force these distinctions.

Could you clarify something else for me about the kinds translation:
if ko'a and ko'i are event-kinds, does {ca ko'u ko'a balvi = ko'i} imply
{ca ko'u ko'a .e ko'i fasnu}?

Probably. That would depend on the details of the semantics of "bal= vi", which being a time relation is of course tricky to tense. But to = make sense of it, ko'u would probably have to be long enough for ko'= ;i to occur and then ko'a to occur at ko'u. Say something like &quo= t;this spring the swallows came after school started".=C2=A0

ko'u =3D this spring
ko'a =3D the swallow= s come
ko'i =3D school starts

If so, why also explicitly declare ko'a to fasnu? But if not, I think the kinds translation's meaning might be quite different from that
I attribute to the original sentence.

I= 'm thinking the first connectand is independent of the tag-carrying con= nectand. The tag-carrying connectand might also imply the first connectand,= but that's not necessarily the case for all tags.

=
Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'= e ba bo
brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba brode}.

Yes, but ba what? =C2=A0"b= a ko'u" or "ba lo nu broda"?

> Another point against the quantifier reading is that if you change &qu= ot;.e ba
> bo" to "na .a ba bo", then we would seem to need to cha= nge "su'o" to "ro"
> in the quantified expansion: "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo z= arci na .a
> ba bo lo zdani" -> "ca ro nu mi xagji kei ro da poi nu mi= klama lo zarci
> zo'u ga nai da fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani" or something= like that,
> whereas with the kind-reading you use the same expansion "ca ro n= u mi xagji
> kei ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ga nai ko'a fasn= u gi ba ko'a mi
> klama lo zdani".

Interesting. So this is like a literal translation of "if I go = to the
market, after going to the market I go home", analysing "going to= the
market" as a reference to a kind rather than as a reference to a witne= ss
going in the antecedent?

It's what = one would have to say in a more fine grained universe containing instances,= but it's not a direct translation in the sense that a direct translati= on I think would have to be based on the same universe of discourse.
<= div>=C2=A0
So you now prefer this approach to your previous suggestion of using
{nu na broda} when analysing {broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode}?

I'm not very committed to anything at this point= . I'm only saying that given the choice between the "lo nu"-v= ersion and the "su'o nu"-version I would go with the "lo= nu"-version. =C2=A0

=C2=A0 broda .i [jek] [t= ag] bo brode -> broda .i [jek] [tag] lo nu (na) broda cu brode
=

sounds reasonable to me for tenses. The "(na)"= ; doesn't really kick in for "je" or for "naja", so= these two examples don't cover all cases. For non-tenses I want to rea= d it as:

=C2=A0 broda .i [jek] [tag] bo brode ->= ; broda .i [jek] broda [tag] lo nu brode

but t= hat may be even more problematic for "jonai" type connectives.

So I guess this kind of reasoning would have
{broda .i je nai ca bo brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but broda never occurs simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have expected it to mean something more like "broda occurs some time when brodo doesn't".

I hope you are= not thinking that by rejecting an equivalence of "lo" with "= ;su'o" I'm somehow embracing an equivalence with "ro"= ;. "lo" is neither "su'o" nor "ro" (or it= is both), because "lo" sees all instances as one, so there's= no distinction to be made between "su'o" and "ro" = in this coarse grained view.=C2=A0 I think it just means "broda occurs= , but not simultaneously with brodo". =C2=A0

= 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.
--001a11c28fa00ed0f8050828b4fc--