Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56f30b98-4848-32c1-b7e4-510f7be6434b@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> <CAO7tK2eMmn-m0UoHSHkqwZs0NCY5V2OfhomDsnqtn8xNg1o3tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56f30b98-4848-32c1-b7e4-510f7be6434b@gmx.de>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:15:58 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cYBba013HFaJTsiRUHqpLVUS+tfPdwefnEfhmTH7JQaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11415868321ce7053e8944fb
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: -

--001a11415868321ce7053e8944fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:15 PM, selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 10.10.2016 02:36, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Of course. But I believe that a distributive {citka} does not prohibit
> this.


A place is distributive when "ko'a broda" necessarily entails "ro (pa) ko'a
broda".

"lo verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba" should not entail "ro (pa) lo verba
pu citka pi ro lo titnanba", but if citka1 was distributive, it would.


Let us look at some of the many possible meanings of a simple quantified
> statement in English, say, "At least three people carried a chair":
>
> 1) At least three people are such that each of them carried a chair.
> 2) At least three people are such that each of them was involved in
> carrying a chair.
> 3) Some people that are at least three moved a piano together.
>
> Would you say that all of these describe the same relationship or
> different relationships?
>

They are all different situations, all describable by the original
sentence, which is not as specific as the more specific (1), (2) and (3).


> Or your "eating cake" example, would you say that each different reading
> is a different meaning of "eat"?
>

No, that's my point, "eat" can describe many different situations, which
you can distinguish by adding more words.


I mentioned above that there are other means by which intermediate
> distributivity can be achieved, and by which "the children ate the cake" =
is
> acceptable even with a distributive "eat".
>
> One such approach is one that we use in other areas of Lojban (or any
> language) as well, and that is the idea of pragmatic slack. In certain
> contexts and situations, sentences that are false when taken literally ca=
n
> still be considered true at the level of detail that is currently relevan=
t.
> We don't care if really every single one of the things ate cake, because =
it
> isn't relevant to our specific situation.


But that's not the issue here. Even if every single one of them ate cake,
it is false that any one of them ate the whole cake, let alone each one of
them. Distributivity would require that every one of them ate the *whole*
cake.

Similarly, we don't mind if someone says "I woke up at nine" when really
> they woke up a few minutes after nine. Nevertheless, the meaning of "wake
> up at nine" is not changed, nor is the meaning of "ate cake" changed.
> (Lasersohn (1999) discusses this in great detail)
>

I'm not talking about "eat cake", I'm talking about "eat the whole cake". I
have no problem with saying that "eat cake" is distributive. But "eat the
whole cake" is not even close to being distributive.


> And additionally, when it is important, words like {kansi'u} exist (and I
> have proposed that a bunch of similar words could exist that express
> related forms of "doing something together", depending on the nature of t=
he
> togetherness (e.g. just being in the same place as some of them eat,
> helping each other so that some of them eat, and so on). These are not
> necessarily roundabout, and you would only use them when you think it
> matters.
>

Definitely.

So all in all, you may say it doesn't matter which approach we use as long
> as you
>
> > can say "the children took the chairs to the garden" when you don't kno=
w
> or don't care about how the action was distributed among children and
> chairs.
>
> But it makes a difference to me, because in one case we throw our hands i=
n
> the air about the meaning of a predicate, and in the other case we can
> decide what it means on a fundamental level.


I'm still not sure what you have in mind. If you tell me that citka1 is
distributive, then "lo so'i verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba" sounds like
nonsense to me, because a distributive citka1 would entail "ro (pa) lo so'i
verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba".

 For some places it's
>> reasonable that it be part of the definition of the predicate ("pavmei"
>> might be an example).
>>
>
> {pavmei} cannot be distributive. It is only true of things that are one i=
n
> number. {[su'oi] re da pavmei} is false. If you meant its distributivity
> type must be non-distributive, then yes.
>

I assumed you were using "pavmei" to mean "x1 is/are individuals", as
opposed to "pa mei", "x1 are one".

The first one would have to be distributive: "lo so'i prenu cu pavmei"
would be true and it entails "ro pa lo so'i prenu cu pavmei": "the many
people are individuals" entails "each one of the many people is an
individual".

The second one is necessarily non-distributive (like all "PA mei"
predicates). "lo so'i prenu cu pa mei" would mean that the many people are
one, which would be false, since they are many. (We can leave for another
day "the many people are one nation" and things like that.)


There are many predicates that only make sense non-distributively.
>

Yes. "simxu" to take a common example.

There are also many predicates that are fundamentally distributive, and
> where making them non-distributive only adds vagueness.


My understanding of "pavmei" (meaning "individual") would be one of them,
but maybe you were using "pavmei" to mean something else. I don't believe
"citka" is a good example of fundamentally distributive, since it's easy to
come up with clearly non-distributive examples, such as "they ate the whole
cake".

But it makes me wonder. Is it really such a crazy idea for Lojban to have
> different words for rather different kinds of carrying even though Englis=
h
> only has one? Let's not forget that Lojban is also a way to experience ne=
w
> ways of thinking about situations. We split English words into multiple
> distinct brivla all the time, why shouldn't we here? It would be
> interesting.


I don't mind introducing overly specific predicates, as long as we don't
lose the more general ones so that we can still say simple things in simple
ways.

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

--001a11415868321ce7053e8944fb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:15 PM, selpahi <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote=
:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 10.10.2016 02:36, J=
orge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I don&#39;t believe a distributive &quot;citka&quot; is all that useful. I =
want to be<br>
able to say &quot;the children ate the whole cake&quot; without having to<b=
r>
introduce any roundabouts.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Of course. But I believe that a distributive {citka} does not prohibit this=
.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>A place is distributive when &quot;ko&#39=
;a broda&quot; necessarily entails &quot;ro (pa) ko&#39;a broda&quot;.</div=
><div><br></div><div>&quot;lo verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba&quot; should=
 not entail &quot;ro (pa) lo verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba&quot;, but if=
 citka1 was distributive, it would.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Let us look at some of the many possible meanings of a simple quantified st=
atement in English, say, &quot;At least three people carried a chair&quot;:=
<br>
<br>
1) At least three people are such that each of them carried a chair.<br>
2) At least three people are such that each of them was involved in carryin=
g a chair.<br>
3) Some people that are at least three moved a piano together.<br>
<br>
Would you say that all of these describe the same relationship or different=
 relationships?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They are all different =
situations, all describable by the original sentence, which is not as speci=
fic as the more specific (1), (2) and (3).=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or your &quot;eating cake&quot; example, would you say that each different =
reading is a different meaning of &quot;eat&quot;?<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>No, that&#39;s my point, &quot;eat&quot; can describe many diff=
erent situations, which you can distinguish by adding more words.</div><div=
>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I mentioned abov=
e that there are other means by which intermediate distributivity can be ac=
hieved, and by which &quot;the children ate the cake&quot; is acceptable ev=
en with a distributive &quot;eat&quot;.<br>
<br>
One such approach is one that we use in other areas of Lojban (or any langu=
age) as well, and that is the idea of pragmatic slack. In certain contexts =
and situations, sentences that are false when taken literally can still be =
considered true at the level of detail that is currently relevant. We don&#=
39;t care if really every single one of the things ate cake, because it isn=
&#39;t relevant to our specific situation. </blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>But that&#39;s not the issue here. Even if every single one of them ate ca=
ke, it is false that any one of them ate the whole cake, let alone each one=
 of them. Distributivity would require that every one of them ate the *whol=
e* cake.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Similarly, we d=
on&#39;t mind if someone says &quot;I woke up at nine&quot; when really the=
y woke up a few minutes after nine. Nevertheless, the meaning of &quot;wake=
 up at nine&quot; is not changed, nor is the meaning of &quot;ate cake&quot=
; changed.<br>
(Lasersohn (1999) discusses this in great detail)<br></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div>I&#39;m not talking about &quot;eat cake&quot;, I&#39;m talking =
about &quot;eat the whole cake&quot;. I have no problem with saying that &q=
uot;eat cake&quot; is distributive. But &quot;eat the whole cake&quot; is n=
ot even close to being distributive.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And additionally, when it is important, words like {kansi&#39;u} exist (and=
 I have proposed that a bunch of similar words could exist that express rel=
ated forms of &quot;doing something together&quot;, depending on the nature=
 of the togetherness (e.g. just being in the same place as some of them eat=
, helping each other so that some of them eat, and so on). These are not ne=
cessarily roundabout, and you would only use them when you think it matters=
.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Definitely. =C2=A0</div><div><br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So all in all, you may say it doesn&#39;t matter which approach we use as l=
ong as you<br>
<br>
&gt; can say &quot;the children took the chairs to the garden&quot; when yo=
u don&#39;t know or don&#39;t care about how the action was distributed amo=
ng children and chairs.<br>
<br>
But it makes a difference to me, because in one case we throw our hands in =
the air about the meaning of a predicate, and in the other case we can deci=
de what it means on a fundamental level.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&=
#39;m still not sure what you have in mind. If you tell me that citka1 is d=
istributive, then &quot;lo so&#39;i verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba&quot; =
sounds like nonsense to me, because a distributive citka1 would entail &quo=
t;ro (pa) lo so&#39;i verba pu citka pi ro lo titnanba&quot;.</div><div><br=
></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">=C2=A0For some places it&#39;s<br>
reasonable that it be part of the definition of the predicate (&quot;pavmei=
&quot;<br>
might be an example).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
{pavmei} cannot be distributive. It is only true of things that are one in =
number. {[su&#39;oi] re da pavmei} is false. If you meant its distributivit=
y type must be non-distributive, then yes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>I assumed you were using &quot;pavmei&quot; to mean &quot;x1 is/are ind=
ividuals&quot;, as opposed to &quot;pa mei&quot;, &quot;x1 are one&quot;.</=
div><div><br></div><div>The first one would have to be distributive: &quot;=
lo so&#39;i prenu cu pavmei&quot; would be true and it entails &quot;ro pa =
lo so&#39;i prenu cu pavmei&quot;: &quot;the many people are individuals&qu=
ot; entails &quot;each one of the many people is an individual&quot;.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>The second one is necessarily non-distributive (like al=
l &quot;PA mei&quot; predicates). &quot;lo so&#39;i prenu cu pa mei&quot; w=
ould mean that the many people are one, which would be false, since they ar=
e many. (We can leave for another day &quot;the many people are one nation&=
quot; and things like that.)</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">
There are many predicates that only make sense non-distributively.<br></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. &quot;simxu&quot; to take a common example=
.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There are also many predicates that are fundamentally distributive, and whe=
re making them non-distributive only adds vagueness.</blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>My understanding of &quot;pavmei&quot; (meaning &quot;individual&=
quot;) would be one of them, but maybe you were using &quot;pavmei&quot; to=
 mean something else. I don&#39;t believe &quot;citka&quot; is a good examp=
le of fundamentally distributive, since it&#39;s easy to come up with clear=
ly non-distributive examples, such as &quot;they ate the whole cake&quot;.=
=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But it makes me wonder. Is it really such a crazy idea for Lojban to have d=
ifferent words for rather different kinds of carrying even though English o=
nly has one? Let&#39;s not forget that Lojban is also a way to experience n=
ew ways of thinking about situations. We split English words into multiple =
distinct brivla all the time, why shouldn&#39;t we here? It would be intere=
sting.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t mind introducing overly =
specific predicates, as long as we don&#39;t lose the more general ones so =
that we can still say simple things in simple ways.=C2=A0</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</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 />

--001a11415868321ce7053e8944fb--