Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229;
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: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:16:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dP=LCnrgskjEzTe1sKMqXGK6L2Zo0jXThCjfcTOy91qGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141e55ed428ab053e829203
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: -

--001a1141e55ed428ab053e829203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 9 Oct 2016 16:49, "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.

My view is the same as xorxes's (thanks to my long ago having been
persuaded by his insights on this point, as on so many others). "The guests
have eaten all the sausages" is not (fully) distributive and judgements of
whether a given predicate, such as "eat all the sausages", can be fully
collective, or fully distributive, or intermediate, are more a matter of
pragmatics than of formal semasiology.

So I think the better way to handle this linguistically is to have ways to
explicitly encode full collectivity ("plurality X but not necessarily any
subplurality of X" = ru'o) and full distributivity ("every single X but not
necessarily any plurality of them" = ro('oi) pa), without fretting about
their truth-conditions with any given predicate.

--And.

-- 
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.

--001a1141e55ed428ab053e829203
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">On 9 Oct 2016 16:49, &quot;selpahi&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:seladwa@gmx.de">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 08.10.2016 02:23, And Rosta wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Each argument place is either<br>
&gt;&gt; distributive or collective? Would you not also want an &quot;unspe=
cified as<br>
&gt;&gt; regards distributivity&quot;? And wouldn&#39;t this mean that wher=
e the xorxesian<br>
&gt;&gt; underspecification of distributivity would have one predicate with=
, say,<br>
&gt;&gt; three argument places, yours would have 2^3 or 3^3 predicates? Thi=
s<br>
&gt;&gt; looks so untenable that I conclude I must be misunderstanding you.=
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This would indeed be untenable, but I do not believe that you need eve=
ry version of every predicate. For example, I believe that a distributive {=
citka} is enough. Very often, a non-distributive version is either not dist=
inct from the distributive version, or includes some added meaning of &quot=
;doing it together while possibly some of them only watch&quot; (things lik=
e {kansi&#39;u lo ka citka}). There is a lot more to be said here, but I=
9;d rather first hear any additional points from you.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">My view is the same as xorxes&#39;s (thanks to my long ago h=
aving been persuaded by his insights on this point, as on so many others). =
&quot;The guests have eaten all the sausages&quot; is not (fully) distribut=
ive and judgements of whether a given predicate, such as &quot;eat all the =
sausages&quot;, can be fully collective, or fully distributive, or intermed=
iate, are more a matter of pragmatics than of formal semasiology. </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">So I think the better way to handle this linguistically is t=
o have ways to explicitly encode full collectivity (&quot;plurality X but n=
ot necessarily any subplurality of X&quot; =3D ru&#39;o) and full distribut=
ivity (&quot;every single X but not necessarily any plurality of them&quot;=
 =3D ro(&#39;oi) pa), without fretting about their truth-conditions with an=
y given predicate.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<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 />

--001a1141e55ed428ab053e829203--