From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 07 18:17:51 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 07 May 2006 18:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcuNR-00038W-6t for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 18:17:33 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcuNL-00038O-U9 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 18:17:32 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so864740wra for ; Sun, 07 May 2006 18:17:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=seR/62SAt0Ii2qIEOxkCiocAVWwieD2/Al1N2Bp1nBruI4kByW3rvdtIi4qGJ2z40At0n6fIwQUXEDJA+Z/SupPqpcJxDPMRGQrRADYiwFNlqmNTUU57a3NP0cYseFAZxkWp/h8bCCF+JEoPWL8FwGc8oRemXHuRiyxbiInkqhY= Received: by 10.65.163.10 with SMTP id q10mr723455qbo; Sun, 07 May 2006 18:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 May 2006 18:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:17:25 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <20060507213108.33240.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060507213108.33240.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11430 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/7/06, John E Clifford wrote: > Let me summarize where thing lie at the moment > and where various people are trying to make them > go. I omit Maxim's, partly because I don't think > they have really settled down yet and partly > because I am not at all sure I understand where > they are at the moment. (Indeed they aren't.) I'll illustrate my position, as you asked it, by commenting on or (dis)agreeing with various given background statements. You'll have to bear with me (pun perhaps intentional) in my responses below, as I'm less familiar (with some aspects of it). > Officially: > {le} and {lo} are distinguished by specificity. > In addition (as a consequence of inspecificity, > so it can be taken as pointing somewhere), what > is referred by {lo broda} to must be a broda. On > the other hand, what is referred to by {le broda} > does not have to be a broda (though its being a > broda is the best reason for calling it one). > This is a consequence of specificity: we have the > referent picked out already and the description > merely gives it a tag -- one that will help > others to find the right thing as well (the So specificity is (was?) as follows: I have something in mind. It might be all bears, it might be a group of three bears that were ahead of three other bears as they were chasing us, it might be all bears that chase, and (herein lies your specificity) it might be the three chaser-type bears that specifically chased us, or just (some) three chaser-type bears. The former is specific, the latter is non specific. Is this illustrative? I disagree with this concept of specificity. If I wanted to say "three chaser type bears" (non-specific, just that some three), I'd say {ci lo (ro) broda poi [restricted to also-chasers]}. In all cases (regarding the inner quantifier), the referent is picked out. You could mean 10 bears, 20 bears, the referent is there. You need not even know the number of bears that you mean - maybe you mean incidentally all, maybe you mean somewhere above one, maybe you mean somewhere around 10000 - you just don't know how to accurately quantify them, or maybe you don't want to. The best you /can/ do is restrict them ("I mean that are also chasers"), or restrict them absolutely with an inner {ro} - "yes I mean exactly 'they are bears and they are chasers', in which case you can't say 'well no, I really meant the ones that are climbers (excluding non-climbers), and are bears, and are chasers' ". Basically, ("bears that are chasers, all of them, and so that's exactly what I mean/have in mind"). Adding that inner {ro} means that you're committing to your restrictions, and no other restrictions need apply. If you think that maybe you havn't restricted it well enough ("well, I mean bears that were chasers but perhaps this could be restricted further.."), keep it at (the default) {su'o}, don't use {ro}. '{ro} is a commiter' applies to /both/ {lo} /and/ {le}. With {le}, however, you could backpedal and say that your definition of bear (or chaser) meant that they were climbers also ('bears in my mind were inherently climbers, no bears existed that weren't'), but you'd probably just say that you goofed up (on your own definition) and should have restricted it better or not have used {ro} - just as you'd do if you messed up on your {lo} restrictions. Something very important, and perhaps the source of the initial definition's error: The complete purpose of {ro} is that it finalizes your restrictions. "Those three bears that chased us (were brown)" is *not* translated using a {ci}. It's translated using a {ro}. {lo ro cribe poi jersi mi'o [were brown]}. But in fact the complete translation would be (perhaps) {ci lo ro cribe cu jersi mi'o [identical with] ro lo ci cribe cu bunre}. So it seems that English has a nice way of wrapping an assertion regarding exactly how many there were right into a sentence. Note the difference between: "The three bears that chased us (were brown)" "Those three bears that chased us (were brown)" The first implies that there may have been other chasing bears ("but I mean just three, and don't want to bother restricting"), the second basically contains an assertion regarding how many bears there were. The first is translated to {lo ci cribe poi jersi mi'o [were brown]}. The translation to the second is above (involving identity). All of this is why I considered the zoo example provided incorrect, and should serve to illustrate exactly how I'm approaching quantifiers. Perhaps an aside: Because an assertion regarding how many there were seems useful, I suggest that ro+# would be the equivalent of "those three", or "them three-all bears" (suppose a rural dialect) - that is, you could now pack an assertion of exactly how many there were such that fit... into your basic statement. This is thought to be a bad idea in the case of {lo rosoci cribe} "there are things, and there are 91 such that are bears", (er, I may have screwed that up) and it is a bad idea for something so vaguely restricted, but it would capture the translation of "those three bears..." perfectly. But this suggestion can probably wait until this is all sorted out. > This is a consequence of specificity: we have the > referent picked out already and the description > merely gives it a tag -- one that will help > others to find the right thing as well (the > correct tag will sometimes -- maybe even often -- > interfere with finding the right thing: calling > Juno a man rather than a woman, while correct > would not lead to Juno, since others identified > her(him) as a woman). As I hope I demonstrated above, you always have a referent picked out. But yes, this is exactly what I consider the function of {le}. > The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o} > internally and {ro} externally. The implicit > quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So an > explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives the > number of all the whatevers in the world, while > one on {le} just tells how many thingies the > speaker has in mind. External quantifers are > partitive, how many out of the totality given by > the internal quantifer are being spoken of here. I'm undecided on the outer, but I am firm in my current belief that {ro} should never be an inner quantifier by default for any case. > {lo,le,la} are about individuals taken > separately, that is, what is predicated of a > sumti of these sorts is predicated of each > ultimate referent of that sumti taken > individually. In contrast, {loi, lei, lai} are > about "masses," one of those words that > Loglan/Lojban has taken over from some fairly > precise meaning -- I think "mass noun" -- and > used differently and without a very clear > meaning. Among the things that examples suggest > as falling under this notion -- and which others > have elevated at one time or another to the main > meaning of {loi} etc. expressions are 1) {loi > broda cu brode} says of some brodas that although > no one of them brodes, taken together they do > (e.g. surround a building as the brode), all of > them participating in the event. 2) the > corporation of brodas -- like 1 in that no one > member does it but unlike 1 in that {loi broda} > may remain the same even if the brodas referred > to change and the corporation may do things in > which some -- or even all -- of its members do > not participate (GM makes cars although many > members of GM don't work on cars, the Red Sox won > the pennant although all management and some > players on the roster did not ever play any > baseball)(Species are either in this group or > something very similar.). 3) The mass noun > related to {broda} (which, in Lojban, is always > count), the goo into which brodas dissolve under > pressure and of which they may be taken as slices > (the "gavagai" jokes and, after the accident, > "there was dog all over the car). There are > probably others I have forgotten ("myopic > individuals" or some such that I never > understood, for example). In any case, they lVi > sumti are not about individuals taken separately. > {lo'i, le'i, la'i} are for Cantor sets of > individuals of the noted sort. Like the lVi > series they preserve the disntions among the > simple e, o, and a gadri. I am somewhat ignorant of 'Cantor sets' (reduced into infinite infinitely small sub-things..?), though I think I understand enough (of sets) to understand (what you're explaining). As for lVi, I think (perhaps) that the most important thing is that they all do it together. Questions like "is it true that loi ro countries fought the country of Germany if the country of England has fought it?" seem not to affect the discussion. > The way changes are going (this may not be a > completely accurate presentation of all the view, > since I am a partisan here and also don't really > understand some moves by others). > > A. The lV'i series for sets was needed in the > olden days because standard logic had (that it > was aware of) no way of dealing with plurals than > by sets (which are singular but encompass many). > Of course, in that same standard logic talk about > sets had no (very straightforward) way to deal > with the properties of the members of a set while > talking about the set explicitly. The appearance > (or coming to attention) of plural quantification > (and reference) removed that problem and > introduced a device (actually either of at least > two devices) which dealt with plurals in a way > that covered both ordinary sumti (lV, lVi, etc.) > and did all the things that sets were explicitly > used to do. In short, though lV'i remains in the > language, it has virtually no usefulness outside > of mathematics (and so does not need such a > useful set of words). I think everyone wants to > get rid of these altogether, but it will take > some doing to actually make the change. > > Of the various uses of lVi, 1 is covered in > plural logic by the notion of non-distributive > (collective) predication. As such it is not > appropriately expressed by a gadri, since it does > not involve something different from a > distributive predication but only a different way > of predicating on the same thing(s). It ought I don't understand > then to be somehow expressed in the predicate not > the arguments but there is presently no way to do > this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to > do it. For the nonce then the difference is > still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even though > this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the > corporate form, which is about a different sort > of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is > also still covered by lVi, often without noticing > the difference involved. Should a predicate way > of dealing with the collective/distributive > distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be I'm again lost. > used for these cases, although they are perhaps > not common enough to deserve such a central set > of words. I thin that some people still use lVi > for the goo reading, 3, although it seems to be > adequately covered by collective predication over > pieces of brodas and that locution seems to be > about the right length for the frquency of this > sort notion. (Something like this may also work > forthe corporate model, 2, using the appropriate > one of a number of predicates for organizations > of this sort -- if the right ones exist). > > Moving lV, as far as I can tell {le} and {la} are > unchanged, except that the distributivity need > not be assumed; rather whether distribution or > collection is meant is mainly left to context, What is distribution and collection (perhaps with examples)?. It might help to know that I'm very vague on the distinction between {lu'o ro lo ro cribe} and {ro lo ro cribe}. > with the lVi forms brought in where collection is > crucial and not obvious. Presumably solving the > predication form of this would allow these gadri > to be neutral -- just referring to the brodas > involved without limiting how they are inolved. > Implicit quantifiers have been done away with, I assume that implicit quantifiers are basically an additional assertion regarding how many there are such that..., as I described above, correct? > except that the very meaning of these two gadri > require that there be something they refer to > (i.e., it is as if the implicit internal > quantifier were {su'o}) and both distribution and > collection are about all the members in these > cases, so something like explicit external {ro} > is involved. These readings off what is involved > in specifying seem to be the point which the old > implicit quantifiers were meant to cover). My position regarding outer quantifiers is undecided. It's the difference between {xu do pu viska lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} meaning: {xu do pu viska su'o lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} - "did you see some" {xu do pu viska ro lo cribe ca lo nu do vitke le dalpanka} - "did you see all (surely meaning did you see all that were in the zoo)" ...and given this example to oppose others that exist, I can't say which is better. > The case of {lo} is somewhat more complex. The > basics are clear enough: it is unmarked for > specificity and for distributivity. And the Again (as always, since I think that it's my major point), I wonder what is meant by specificity. Distributivity is another matter, and I need to give it more consideration (specifically in terms of the second non-ro-outer suggesting X-for-each"). > explicit external quantifiers are clear, that is > how many brodas we are attributiing the predicate > to (and, probably, distributively since > quantifiers tend to individualize rather than > mass). > After that comes the separation. On one view, > the unmarked form is just the unspecific form of > {le}, brodas that get caught up in this case by > context and intent, but not specified. An > explicit internal quantifier says how many there > are as such in this case, and an external > quantifier says how many of them get the current > prdicate. And, by the way, {lo broda} in primary > usage entails that there are broda (not in the > scope of negations, world altering modals, > absttractions or opque contexts). I am less > clear what the other version says about simple > {lo broda} except that on occasion at least, it > is said to yield true claims from primary > occurrences even when there are no brodas and to > authorize external generalization from opaque > contexts. To do these things, it can no longer > refer to brodas as such but moves to something at > a different level (I've tried a number of > suggestions, none of which worked apparently). In I'm somewhat lost here. > addition, internal quantifiers become part of the > defining predicate: {lo ci broda} is not three > brodas bu some (or maybe no?) broda triads. {mu > lo ci broda} then is five broda triads -- between > seven and fifteen brodas. I disagree with this. {ci lo broda} is the triad (formed out of members of some here-unrestricted group), and the {mu} (five triads of) is given by whatever-it-is earlier in the sentence. The quoted version would be inconsistent with what I've described, and I'm very sure also inconsistent with whatever is the current usage. > Now, against that background, I wonder if Maxim > can provide some clarification of his suggestions. The biggest aspect of my suggestion is that {lo}-types are capable of handling all cases thus-far provided, and that {le} is /not/ a subset of {lo}. They are completely seperate. It may as well be that {le} didn't exist. And, with that in mind, this lets us re-introduce the {le}-types as a compliment to the {lo}-types, with the very same usage, except that with {le} you get "by my definition", while with {lo} you get "by common definition". I'd then imagine that {le} would be used for more casual speech where you're not explaining / discussing / arguing anything, and so have the liberty of using your own definitions (just in case, so why not?), and it allows for comments like "by-my-definition-the prince of Wales tore down the curtains" (in reference to a chimp). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.