Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <99931644-56cd-b50f-401d-af57df7e64b0@gmx.de>
References: <3cb1fc04-c3d0-3535-099e-30b8b120f219@gmx.de> <CACf3dPm1Q82=q34=_HeWSy1oxZY3E2mT-SAoxa4imVp_xBXmGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <99931644-56cd-b50f-401d-af57df7e64b0@gmx.de>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:36:14 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eMmn-m0UoHSHkqwZs0NCY5V2OfhomDsnqtn8xNg1o3tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c060f228f7c7f053e77f27e
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

--94eb2c060f228f7c7f053e77f27e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM, selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 08.10.2016 02:23, And Rosta wrote:
>
>>
>> Each argument place is either
>> distributive or collective? Would you not also want an "unspecified as
>> regards distributivity"? And wouldn't this mean that where the xorxesian
>> underspecification of distributivity would have one predicate with, say,
>> three argument places, yours would have 2^3 or 3^3 predicates? This
>> looks so untenable that I conclude I must be misunderstanding you.
>>
>
> This would indeed be untenable, but I do not believe that you need every
> version of every predicate. For example, I believe that a distributive
> {citka} is enough. Very often, a non-distributive version is either not
> distinct from the distributive version, or includes some added meaning of
> "doing it together while possibly some of them only watch" (things like
> {kansi'u lo ka citka}). There is a lot more to be said here, but I'd rather
> first hear any additional points from you.
>

I don't believe a distributive "citka" is all that useful. I want to be
able to say "the children ate the whole cake" without having to introduce
any roundabouts.

It's also a simplification to say that there are only two kinds of
distributivity (fully distributive and fully collective). Those are just
the two extremes. In many cases we can have partial distributivity. For
example, I can say "the children took the chairs to the garden", when one
of the children took one chair, another one took two, and two other
children took one chair together. If you make "take" distributive, you make
it hard to say something simple like "the children took the chairs to the
garden" when you don't know or don't care about how the action was
distributed among children and chairs. If you say you can use the
collective version for that, then you can use it for everything, since in
that case "non-distributive" doesn't really mean "all together at once".


> Unspecified distributivity in an argument place is a form of ambiguity at
> the definitional level of a predicate.


No, it's just a form of vagueness, where you don't specify what you don't
want or need to specify.


> It makes it very difficult to ever answer "what does it mean to {broda}",
> because there are by definition multiple potentially non-overlapping
> answers.


That's true with or without distributivity. Very few predicates can be
defined so precisely that they won't admit of multiple potentially
non-overlapping definitions.

(I cannot possibly count the hours that went into discussing {bevri lo
> pipno} over the years without ever getting to a conclusion. This sort of
> stuff is hard to sort out!)
>

But don't we already know what it means? At least to the extent that we can
use it without creating any kind of confusion? Why wouldn't a definition
similar to "support and move (someone or something) from one place to
another." work?

There are other ways (for example, in the realm of pragmatics) to deal with
> vague distributivity, outside of the definition of argument places, and I
> prefer those ways.


I'm not too sure how stringent you want to be with defining distributivity
into all predicate places. For some places it's reasonable that it be part
of the definition of the predicate ("pavmei" might be an example). For
other predicates, I don't see how forcing a fixed distributivity helps,
since there are things that can just as well be done separately or together.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--94eb2c060f228f7c7f053e77f27e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM, selpahi <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-sty=
le:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-">On 08.10.2016 02:23, And =
Rosta wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></span><span class=3D"gmail-">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
Each argument place is either<br>
distributive or collective? Would you not also want an &quot;unspecified as=
<br>
regards distributivity&quot;? And wouldn&#39;t this mean that where the xor=
xesian<br>
underspecification of distributivity would have one predicate with, say,<br=
>
three argument places, yours would have 2^3 or 3^3 predicates? This<br>
looks so untenable that I conclude I must be misunderstanding you.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
This would indeed be untenable, but I do not believe that you need every ve=
rsion of every predicate. For example, I believe that a distributive {citka=
} is enough. Very often, a non-distributive version is either not distinct =
from the distributive version, or includes some added meaning of &quot;doin=
g it together while possibly some of them only watch&quot; (things like {ka=
nsi&#39;u lo ka citka}). There is a lot more to be said here, but I&#39;d r=
ather first hear any additional points from you.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>I don&#39;t believe a distributive &quot;citka&quot; is all that =
useful. I want to be able to say &quot;the children ate the whole cake&quot=
; without having to introduce any roundabouts.</div><div><br></div><div>It&=
#39;s also a simplification to say that there are only two kinds of distrib=
utivity (fully distributive and fully collective). Those are just the two e=
xtremes. In many cases we can have partial distributivity. For example, I c=
an say &quot;the children took the chairs to the garden&quot;, when one of =
the children took one chair, another one took two, and two other children t=
ook one chair together. If you make &quot;take&quot; distributive, you make=
 it hard to say something simple like &quot;the children took the chairs to=
 the garden&quot; when you don&#39;t know or don&#39;t care about how the a=
ction was distributed among children and chairs. If you say you can use the=
 collective version for that, then you can use it for everything, since in =
that case &quot;non-distributive&quot; doesn&#39;t really mean &quot;all to=
gether at once&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-lef=
t-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Unspecified distributivity in an argument place is a form of ambiguity at t=
he definitional level of a predicate.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, i=
t&#39;s just a form of vagueness, where you don&#39;t specify what you don&=
#39;t want or need to specify.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-=
left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> It m=
akes it very difficult to ever answer &quot;what does it mean to {broda}&qu=
ot;, because there are by definition multiple potentially non-overlapping a=
nswers.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s true with or without dis=
tributivity. Very few predicates can be defined so precisely that they won&=
#39;t admit of multiple potentially non-overlapping definitions.</div><div>=
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8=
ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-sty=
le:solid;padding-left:1ex"> (I cannot possibly count the hours that went in=
to discussing {bevri lo pipno} over the years without ever getting to a con=
clusion. This sort of stuff is hard to sort out!)<br></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>But don&#39;t we already know what it means? At least to the ext=
ent that we can use it without creating any kind of confusion? Why wouldn&#=
39;t a definition similar to &quot;<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-se=
rif-light,sans-serif">support and move (someone or something) from one plac=
e to another.&quot; work?</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:arial=
,sans-serif-light,sans-serif"><br></span></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-c=
olor:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
There are other ways (for example, in the realm of pragmatics) to deal with=
 vague distributivity, outside of the definition of argument places, and I =
prefer those ways.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m not too sure how=
 stringent you want to be with defining distributivity into all predicate p=
laces. For some places it&#39;s reasonable that it be part of the definitio=
n of the predicate (&quot;pavmei&quot; might be an example). For other pred=
icates, I don&#39;t see how forcing a fixed distributivity helps, since the=
re are things that can just as well be done separately or together.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div>=
</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--94eb2c060f228f7c7f053e77f27e--