Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:25:34 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141123232534.GP24136@gonzales>
References: <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c4wz288QHQ9r7gxBQqN=ccjyD71NyhTLdO7huAO9N-vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dsqTvWCkR2ZLfgbefKt5b_iQG6uEeM2taMvwEqENVMyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eNsyQsmKTxtBxS+mbNCzD405F37k6L4CMeveaSvMNfcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141120023048.GA1571@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2esCNu_jC87LwNMJZEuOK_ELWk=vD9vZHwY+WjCXypp5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141123010156.GJ24136@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dXEhoeiagH_4Y51hpNh=A6FjnbTRg82iyY6xyzKt0bug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sGwo475CiIwWEjLI"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2dXEhoeiagH_4Y51hpNh=A6FjnbTRg82iyY6xyzKt0bug@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: bukpu
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=none
 (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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--sGwo475CiIwWEjLI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2014-11-23 at 11:11 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail=
.com>:

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > So for example, if yesterday morning it snowed out of a clear sky, but
> > in the afternoon it snowed while the sky was cloudy, and both of these
> > events are salient, what could you say about the truth value of
> > {ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ca bo lo dilnu cu
> > gapru}?

For clarity, I should really have made that example
{ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je ca bo lo dilnu na gapru}.
That doesn't change anything, right?.

> I would say its truth value is the same as the truth value of "ca lo
> prulamdei zo'u ca lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei lo dilnu cu gapru".

And to be clear, do you actually only mean \iota here, or do you really
mean that it has the truth value of that sentence when the {lo nu} are
taken to refer to the corresponding event-kinds?

> I wouldn't say it's definitely true or false under the circumstances
> described, just as I wouldn't say that "lo kadno lanci cu xunre" is
> definitely true or false. I'd say it's a pragmatically inadequate thing t=
o
> say in isolation, because "cabna" is not very well defined when cabna2 is
> an event that happens more than once, just as "xunre" is not very well
> defined when xunre1 is multicolored.
>=20
> > I am understanding you as saying it would be false, while I would have
> > expected it to be true.
>=20
> So you would expect both of these to be true:
>=20
>  ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ca bo lo dilnu cu gapru
>=20
>  ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je ca bo lo dilnu cu gapru
>=20
> ? They may seem contradictory but they are not because of the hidden "su'=
o"
> you are assuming.

I don't think quantification being involved in the connective is key
to their being non-contradictory; that's just a matter of {ge ca ko'a
broda gi ca ko'a na broda} not being contradictory.

But yes, I would expect both to be unambiguously true. I would say they
can be fairly accurately translated as "yesterday it snowed while it was
(not) cloudy".

The event-kind semantics would have the translation be something like
"yesterday, during the snowing it was (not) cloudy"? And the problem
we're seeing here corresponds to the failure of the maximality condition
presupposed by that "the"?

But that isn't really accurate, because you're going via kinds and
a temporally dependent notion of cabna, which seems a fundamentally
different route from that english sentence.

Actually, there's something I'm not understanding here.

I understood you as having cabna(ko'a,ko'e) holding at a given time t,
where ko'a and ko'e are event-kinds, meaning that instances of ko'a and
ko'e occur simultaneously at (or near?) t. There will always be other
instances at other times, but those are ignored. Then assuming we agree
that {ca lo prulamdei ku broda} only implies that broda occurs some time
yesterday, not that it occurs throughout yesterday, wouldn't you have
{ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je ca bo lo dilnu cu gapru}
being true because the two kinds were cabna (some time) yesterday?

Or do you not believe in even this trace of quantification in the
semantics of {ca}? In that case, would you have {ca lo prulamdei ku mi
citka lo tamca} true only if it took up the whole day?

> I'd prefer to go with:
>=20
>  ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ro roi bo lo dilnu cu
> gapru
>=20
>  ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je su'o roi bo lo dilnu cu gap=
ru
>=20
> (where I'm using "PA roi bo" with tense-like semantics).

I don't see how these are working, for the same reason.

Martin

--=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.

--sGwo475CiIwWEjLI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlRybO4ACgkQULC7OLX7LNaDEgCghXl6gYNe2VZy4EH+qLvQtdls
FSAAoOdVMKI79DLOZJkZ0HkCXCk5gXd8
=KCT5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sGwo475CiIwWEjLI--