Received: from mail-la0-f59.google.com ([209.85.215.59]:39607) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xsi0s-0002Au-4J for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:23 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f59.google.com with SMTP id hs14sf712164lab.14 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:15 -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 :content-type: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=liTSvu8xLLJU0nV1HAVu2KG/NZ3pG035RJM0CI7sqQg=; b=E8B8hSISpmiWYtEQuiy0lZ113fykhdUVk5TMIC8JO8EN2+K/K9unR5wxyM6JT7TM1v BKfReTbNjCsen9uFvL99Zg9XwERQxeh3PdXJsYFo9aHzWMhQ7t1y4Ero9BoAibX29czu su3zQhB8mGhNuMjZr8vWkWeesYp6e8aHksO0tTLIUm0ZkMuVySpa7V0Mw5vcnO0Y++3I tEAdabLogARZ2ZXnBoaOZVvlsQDM4VMxRizziarzdUidVN3NlwUCl9P9Atn7paMrJkAq gYy8rPCVpcMITmG5bxOWwdsfouWW/UI7db6WnI1XRtcj7LJ63lrI8KUDc2GVbUyeS79O 7fzQ== X-Received: by 10.152.5.194 with SMTP id u2mr264071lau.3.1416790815257; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:15 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.37.226 with SMTP id b2ls349885lak.36.gmail; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.147.131 with SMTP id tk3mr5406169lbb.2.1416790813978; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jj5si1297399lbc.0.2014.11.23.17.00.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d; Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z12so3638633lbi.4 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.23.103 with SMTP id l7mr16645158laf.92.1416790812370; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.111 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:00:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141123232534.GP24136@gonzales> References: <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales> <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales> <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales> <20141120023048.GA1571@gonzales> <20141123010156.GJ24136@gonzales> <20141123232534.GP24136@gonzales> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:00:11 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c31817b6540508905105 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::22d 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: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0158c31817b6540508905105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Sunday, 2014-11-23 at 11:11 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas >: > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > So for example, if yesterday morning it snowed out of a clear sky, bu= t > > > in the afternoon it snowed while the sky was cloudy, and both of thes= e > > > 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?. > Let's see. For the second connectand the nai-version gives: naku ca lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei lo dilnu cu gapru ~ lo nu lo dilnu cu gapru cu na cabna lo nu lo snime cu carvi and the na-version gives: ca lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei lo dilnu na gapru ~ lo nu lo dilnu na gapru cu cabna lo nu lo snime cu carvi I think they say more or less the same but may not be logically equivalent, unless there's some cabna-logic that says that if an event doesn't cabna another, then the corresponding negated event must cabna it, which I think is reasonable semantics for "cabna". > 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 don't know enough about \iota and kind-theory to decide which one is a better match for "lo", but I doubt it's \iota. > > > So you would expect both of these to be true: > > > > ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ca bo lo dilnu cu gap= ru > > > > ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je ca bo lo dilnu cu gapru > > > > ? 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. > Is that then not equivalent to "ca ko'a ge broda gi na broda"? 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". > Shouldn't the snowing be the reference, though, and the being cludy the tensed statement. Isn't the second connectand more like "yesterday it was (not) cloudy while it snowed"? 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"? > The problem is indeed that the snowing occurred twice, so it's not very easy to figure out what it means to say that something occurred during it. 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. If you insist on bringing instances in, you will have to quantify over them. > 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? > I think it means they were cabna yesterday, not some time yesterday. In our universe of discourse yesterday counts as one time, we don't have it divided into many times such that cabna holds at some of them and not at others. > 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? > No, that would be "ze'a lo prulamdei". "ca lo prulamdei" just says that lo prulamdei is the time at which "mi citka lo tamca" takes place, not its duration. Similarly when I say "mi zutse lo stizu" I don't mean to say that there are some parts of the chair on which I sit, and some parts of the chair on which I don't sit, it's just a relationship between me and the chair. You can give explanations if you want that sitting involves the body of the sitter being in contact with some fraction of the surface of the chair and not necessarily with the whole surface, but that's part of understanding what "zutse" means, not any hidden quantifications in "mi zutse lo stizu", there are no hidden quantifiers over parts of the surface of the chair in that claim, and similarly there are no hidden quantifiers over parts of yesterday in "ca lo prulamdei". > I'd prefer to go with: > > > > ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ro roi bo lo dilnu cu > > gapru > > > > ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je su'o roi bo lo dilnu cu > gapru > > > > (where I'm using "PA roi bo" with tense-like semantics). > > I don't see how these are working, for the same reason. Since the premise was that lo nu lo snime cu carvi happened twice yeterday, I would read those as: Yesterday, it snowed (twice) and not every time that it did it was cloudy. Yesterday, it snowed (twice) and at least one of the times that it did it was cloudy. The "(twice)" is not stated, but it was a part of the set-up. I'm taking "ro roi lo nu PA roi broda" to mean "each of the PA times that it brodas", which I think is a reasonable reading of ro roi ko'a" when ko'a is something happens multiple times. So "PA1 roi lo nu PA2 roi broda" ~ "ca PA1 lo PA2 nu broda". 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. --089e0158c31817b6540508905105 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Sunday, 2014-11-23 at 11:11 -0300 = - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambia= s@gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > 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 di= lnu 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?.

Let's see. For the second connectand the nai-version gives:

=C2=A0 naku ca lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei lo dilnu cu gap= ru
=C2=A0 ~ lo nu lo dilnu cu gapru cu na cabna lo nu lo snime cu= carvi

and the na-version gives:

=C2=A0 ca lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei lo dilnu na gapru
= =C2=A0 ~ lo nu lo dilnu na gapru cu cabna lo nu lo snime cu carvi

I think they say more or less the same but may not be logic= ally equivalent, unless there's some cabna-logic that says that if an e= vent doesn't cabna another, then the corresponding negated event must c= abna it, which I think is reasonable semantics for "cabna".
=

> 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&qu= ot;.

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

<= /div>
I don't know enough about \iota and kind-theory to decide whi= ch one is a better match for "lo", but I doubt it's \iota.=C2= =A0

>
> So you would expect both of these to be true:
>
>=C2=A0 ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ca bo lo di= lnu cu gapru
>
>=C2=A0 ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je ca bo lo dilnu = cu gapru
>
> ? They may seem contradictory but they are not because of the hidden &= quot;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.

Is that then not equivalent to "ca ko'a ge broda = gi na broda"?=C2=A0
=C2=A0

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 w= as
(not) cloudy".

Shouldn't the s= nowing be the reference, though, and the being cludy the tensed statement. = Isn't the second connectand more like "yesterday it was (not) clou= dy while it snowed"?

But that isn't really accurate, because you're going via kinds and<= br> 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&#= 39;a and
ko'e occur simultaneously at (or near?) t. There will always be other instances at other times, but those are ignored.

If you insist on bringing instances in, you will have to quantify ov= er them.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Then as= suming 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}<= br> being true because the two kinds were cabna (some time) yesterday?

I think it means they were cabna yesterday, not= some time yesterday. In our universe of discourse yesterday counts as one = time, we don't have it divided into many times such that cabna holds at= some of them and not at others.
=C2=A0
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?

No, that would be "ze'a lo prulamdei". "= ca lo prulamdei" just says that lo prulamdei is the time at which &quo= t;mi citka lo tamca" takes place, not its duration. Similarly when I s= ay "mi zutse lo stizu" I don't mean to say that there are som= e parts of the chair on which I sit, and some parts of the chair on which I= don't sit, it's just a relationship between me and the chair. You = can give explanations if you want that sitting involves the body of the sit= ter being in contact with some fraction of the surface of the chair and not= necessarily with the whole surface, but that's part of understanding w= hat "zutse" means, not any hidden quantifications in "mi zut= se lo stizu", there are no hidden quantifiers over parts of the surfac= e of the chair in that claim, and similarly there are no hidden quantifiers= over parts of yesterday in "ca lo prulamdei".

> I'd prefer to go with:
>
>=C2=A0 ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je nai ro roi bo l= o dilnu cu
> gapru
>
>=C2=A0 ca lo prulamdei zo'u lo snime cu carvi .i je su'o roi bo= lo dilnu cu gapru
>
> (where I'm using "PA roi bo" with tense-like semantics).=

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

Since the premise was that lo nu lo snime cu carvi = happened twice yeterday, I would read those as:

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yesterday, it snowed (twice) and not every time that it did it= was cloudy.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Yesterday, it snowed (tw= ice) and at least one of the times that it did it was cloudy.=C2=A0

The "(twice)" is not stated, but it was a part = of the set-up.

I'm taking "ro roi lo nu P= A roi broda" to mean "each of the PA times that it brodas", = which I think is a reasonable reading of ro roi ko'a" when ko'= a is something happens multiple times. So "PA1 roi lo nu PA2 roi broda= " ~ "ca PA1 lo PA2 nu broda".

mu= 9;o mi'e xorxes
=C2=A0=C2=A0

--
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.
--089e0158c31817b6540508905105--