From sentto-44114-15698-1032006888-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Sep 14 05:36:37 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.81]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17qCA7-0003bg-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:36:35 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15698-1032006888-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2002 12:34:48 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 14 Sep 2002 12:34:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 5048 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2002 12:34:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2002 12:34:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2002 12:34:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.b2.11a007ff (3948) for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 08:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 08:34:41 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b2.11a007ff.2ab486e1_boundary" X-archive-position: 1186 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_b2.11a007ff.2ab486e1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 5:39:12 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > No, I don't think so. {ta pixra lo'e sincrboa} does not give an > inherent property, nor any property, of boas. It only gives a > property of ta. > >> No it gives a relation between ta and lo'e sincrboa on the surface. The issue is what does all that come down to at the bottom. I suppose that {ta pixra lo'e sincrboa} means something like "That presents an image which manifests [some condition here] visual properties associated with boas" where, with the Lojban {lo'e} the box is filled with "some visually adequate typical". What is it on your usage? It is beginning to look like the same thing, I'm afraid. << I don't think {lo'e cakla} involves directly any property other than {le ka ce'u cakla}. What exactly that property is has to do with the meaning/intension/whatever of {cakla}. I don't think there is any need to look for any other properties to understand {lo'e}. Only that one property is relevant. >> Well, in the case of {nelci}, I agree. But {pixra lo'e sincrboa} behaves differently and her we have to come up with some other properties, since the property of being a boa, as such, is not picturable. We have to go inside and see what that means in visual terms. << For me {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} does not preclude lions living in other places. As And pointed out, it is a claim about Africa: it's inhabited by lions. That's all. If it fails, it is because Africa is inhabited by many other creatures as well as lions, not because lions may also inhabit other places. It all depends on the semantics of xabju: is x1 supposed to be for the main inhabitant(s) of x2? If not, then there is no problem with the claim. >> Let me put it another way. Your claim is, I gather, meant to be a different claim from {lo cinfo cu xabju le frika}, which clearly makes no claim about lions not living (even natively) elsewhere (it doesn't even claim that they live natively in Africa, come to think of it). The Lojban interpretation makes this a typical fact about members of the set of lions: typically, if something were a member of that set, it would live in Africa -- which is clearly different from the {lo} version (it doesn't claim there are lions for one thing) but also makes not claim about whether there are lions elsewhere. {xabju} says nothing about main or sole inhabitants. But what does you {lo'e} say? At the moment it seems indistinguishable from the Lojban bversions -- unless it is jjust {lo} "without the quantification," whatever that might mean. << As long as nobody is tempted to translate it as {mi nelci ro da poi ...}. >> I have been careful, I hope, to put it in the subjunctive to prevent that. My question is now "what preoperties are delimited by your {lo'e sfofa} . If nothing beyond being a sofa, then this is just {nelci tu'a lo sfofa} and as uninteresting as cases where it amounts to nothing more than {lo sfofa}. <> Pardon? One can poi onto {zu'i}, I suppose, but I don't see why one would. {zu'i} doesn't mean "the typical value in this context," it is just replaced by the typical value in this context. In addition, {zu'i [poi broda]} is bindable to {da}, against your notion of {lo'e} and certainly against what I was about in the previous sentences. << >Notice that this sentence is to explain {lo'e}, >so {lo'e} has no place in it -- its components have been spread over the >whole sentence. {lo'e broda} is ultimately an improper symbol in Russell's >sense -- when the semantics are laid out, there is nothing to correspond to >that symbol, but the whole sentence works. I suppose {zi'o} is also an improper symbol, then. And {zu'i} too. >> {zi'o} is not, in the appropriate sense, a symbol at all: it merely marks a different, though related, predicate. {zu'i} is perfectly normal: in the clarification it would appear intact as a reference to the usual referent in that context. We seem to be approaching an understanding here -- asymptotically, since you are still flying off in various directions -- but we still need a statement of what {lo'e} means, how it specifies the proerties of members of the set which ar relevant. --part1_b2.11a007ff.2ab486e1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 5:39:12 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
No, I don't think so. {ta pixra lo'e sincrboa} does not give an
inherent property, nor any property, of boas. It only gives a
property of ta.
>>
No it gives a relation between ta and lo'e sincrboa on the surface. The issue is what does all that come down to at the bottom.  I suppose that {ta pixra lo'e sincrboa} means something like "That presents an image which manifests [some condition here] visual properties associated with boas" where, with the Lojban {lo'e} the box is filled with "some visually adequate typical".  What is it on your usage?  It is beginning to look like the same thing, I'm afraid.

<<
I don't think {lo'e cakla} involves directly any property other
than {le ka ce'u cakla}. What exactly that property is has to do
with the meaning/intension/whatever of {cakla}. I don't think
there is any need to look for any other properties to understand
{lo'e}. Only that one property is relevant.
>>
Well, in the case of {nelci}, I agree.  But {pixra lo'e sincrboa} behaves differently and her we have to come up with some other properties, since the property of being a boa, as such, is not picturable.  We have to go inside and see what that means in visual terms.

<<
For me {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le friko} does not preclude lions
living in other places. As And pointed out, it is a claim about
Africa: it's inhabited by lions. That's all. If it fails, it is
because Africa is inhabited by many other creatures as well as
lions, not because lions may also inhabit other places. It all
depends on the semantics of xabju: is x1 supposed to be for the
main inhabitant(s) of x2? If not, then there is no problem with
the claim.
>>
Let me put it another way.  Your claim is, I gather, meant to be a different claim from {lo cinfo cu xabju le frika}, which clearly makes no claim about lions not living (even natively) elsewhere (it doesn't even claim that they live natively in Africa, come to think of it).  The Lojban interpretation makes this a typical fact about members of the set of lions: typically, if something were a member of that set, it would live in Africa -- which is clearly different from the {lo} version (it doesn't claim there are lions for one thing) but also makes not claim about whether there are lions elsewhere.  {xabju} says nothing about main or sole inhabitants.  But what does you {lo'e} say?  At the moment it seems indistinguishable from the Lojban bversions -- unless it is jjust {lo} "without the quantification," whatever that might mean.

<<
As long as nobody is tempted to translate it as {mi nelci ro da
poi ...}.
>>
I have been careful, I hope, to put it in the subjunctive to prevent that.  My question is now "what preoperties are delimited by your {lo'e sfofa} .  If nothing beyond being a sofa, then this is just {nelci tu'a lo sfofa} and as uninteresting as cases where it amounts to nothing more than {lo sfofa}.

<<Actually, we may have something in Lojban for that:

lo broda = da poi broda
lo'e broda = zu'i poi broda

Yes, I think that could work.
>>
Pardon?  One can poi onto {zu'i}, I suppose, but I don't see why one would.  {zu'i} doesn't mean "the typical value in this context," it is just replaced by the typical value in this context.  In addition, {zu'i [poi broda]} is bindable to {da}, against your notion of {lo'e} and certainly against what I was about in the previous sentences.

<<
>Notice that this sentence is to explain {lo'e},
>so {lo'e} has no place in it -- its components have been spread over the
>whole sentence.  {lo'e broda} is ultimately an improper symbol in Russell's
>sense -- when the semantics are laid out, there is nothing to correspond to
>that symbol, but the whole sentence works.

I suppose {zi'o} is also an improper symbol, then. And {zu'i} too.
>>
{zi'o} is not, in the appropriate sense, a symbol at all: it merely marks a different, though related, predicate.  {zu'i} is perfectly normal: in the clarification it would appear intact as a reference to the usual referent in that context.

We seem to be approaching an understanding here -- asymptotically, since you are still flying off in various directions -- but we still need a statement of what {lo'e} means, how it specifies the proerties of members of the set which ar relevant.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_b2.11a007ff.2ab486e1_boundary--