From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 08 10:22:55 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 08 May 2006 10:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fd9RL-0005fr-LR for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 10:22:35 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fd9RJ-0005fj-W4 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 10:22:35 -0700 Received: (qmail 72954 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2006 17:16:24 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fmfeniiAVFtEdd6qRetzJ7otWCxj1wyzY5a/rQ65dniKPOvAk8Dmzvb+D9CxuxGg6ufcr6twR7+FNHubDzwmZZfumSAiHvWte62oOWuLUGPsJVo/klK0IoW01S2lEbokR/+YvjT4QvTec1UI1hhryjKL3ytsorce0AT7iroKsUE= ; Message-ID: <20060508171624.72952.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 08 May 2006 10:16:24 PDT Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:16:24 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11436 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list <<> 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.>> Well, I think everyone (almost) is agreed on that -- though for a variety of reasons. <<> {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).>> Cantor sets are the regular sets of usual set theory. The distinction is to differenntiate them from 1) Lesniewski sets (alias mereological sums) and 2) ordinary sets used with predicates that connect to the members rather than just the sets. <> Don't get the point of the discussion, but the initial summary is pretty good for sense 1 and for most of what has survived through the various discussions. <<> 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>> Just the last bit? A description refers to a bunch of brodas (one way or another: "bunch" has at least two realizations) A sentence involving that description says something about those brodas -- that they have a certain property. Now it may say they have that property in either of two ways (at least): either each of them has it separately ("My students wear green hats" -- each of them wears a green hat), also called distributively, or they may have it collectively (non-distributively) ("My students surrounded the building" -- no one of them did, but acting together they did). In the two examples, "my students" referred to exactly the same things in each case, the kids in my classes. What is different is not in what is referred to but what is said of it, so the distributive/collective distinction belongs not with the referring expression (the description) but with the predicating part. In addition, attaching the predication type to the description means some cases don't get dealt with: in "The people who surrounded the building wore green hats" the description is applied collectively (that is, it is based on"these people collectively surrounded the building" but the description is used distributively ("They each wore a green hat"). In "The people wearing green hats surrounded the building" the opposite is the case. And, in "my students wore green hats and surrounded the building, I need "my students" to be distributive and collective simultaneously -- one for one predicate, the other for the other. Lojban has nothing to mark these differences except the gadri (nothing like "separately" and "collectively" of the right size), so we continue to use them when we can and the difference is not obvious but is important. Mainly, however, we take it that it is clear from context which is meant and then we can use {lo} (the least specified gadri) throughout. <<> 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.>> Nowadays, {loi} etc. are used mainly for collective predication, but also for the corporate model. If we get a way of getting the collective notion attached to the predicate, then {loi} could be used just for the corporate model. <<> 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 to 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}.>> On collective/distributive see above. On {lu'o} and the like, I haven't seen enough of them to have an opinion, but, since they seem to relate to the old difference between {lo} and {loi}, I think they are on their way out (except they might work for the missing items attached to predicates to mark distributivity/collectivity). <<> 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?>> Implicit quantifiers aren't assertions and, as noted, have been (in the new ideal) been done away with. What remains is that at least {le} descriptions require that there be something referred to (so as though there were an implicit internal {su'o}) and distributive predication claims that all of the referents have the property involved (so as if an implicit external {ro}). <<> 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.>> I guess I still don't get the point or is it just that if there are no external implicit quantifiers we don't know how to take {lo broda}. I think one version, which takes {lo broda} as somehow about all brodas, would say that this has to be read without quantifiers at all (and how that works goes into metaphysics) while the other, which takes {lo broda} as being about some brodas, would say that the assumption is that all of the some referred to are intended. <<> 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").>> I don't see the connection. <<> 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.>> Welcome to the club. <<> 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.>> Well, I agree that this is disagreeable, though I am not sure I follow your objection. Presumably a broda triad is {lo broda cimei}, not {lo ci broda} <<> 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}. >> Well, any time {le} is appropiate, {lo} may be used instead, but the opposite is not true. {lo} cannot be used to specify referents. They are completely seperate. It may as well be that {le} didn't exist. Well, we could get along without the distinction (and maybe should) but for now we need {le} because {lo} can't do its job, which is built into Lojban. <> I don't see the advantage of this, certainly not for a logical language. Nor for one for ordinary use. 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.