From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 23 18:43:04 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 23 May 2006 18:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiiOb-0001AO-Gu for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 18:42:45 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FiiOY-0001AH-Jg for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 18:42:45 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so1534161nzc for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 18:42:41 -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=DMShwguWWH7DV3ugjOoMl8YjpxwZBSAIZSJy+bOpwxlrwZzqJGjZYPQhFyCKe3Qa0aHsB5i08WliqsvUsN3dp0ljMTsDLAiZ0X7WJbueEXVJy3BXjR4Cg/HWk3ue/+8Ijb4+MHA0V5nuYKgJH5UieNO1O65eWCXtM8CmBQbeMNk= Received: by 10.36.227.62 with SMTP id z62mr924817nzg; Tue, 23 May 2006 18:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2006 18:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:41 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.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: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221708q3d88efe8teddf51b3f0e1103c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221736p1d02db31sb154ed5cc4d0e793@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221856w7c5703b4p9ec1d1b296e67093@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605230610r25b3f886tbaa964838a659d74@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11670 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 5/23/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > I still don't see why > > > > ro lo mapku cu melbi gi'e ku'i du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri > > > > (ku'i ro lo mapku du'emei do'e lo nu mi bevri) > > > > wouldn't work if > > > > lo ro... > > > > does. > ¨ > {ro lo broda cu brode} says that each of the referents > of broda satisfies the predicate {brode}. > > {lo ro broda cu brode} says that the referent(s) of > {lo ro broda} satisfy the predicate {brode}, it doesn't > specify whether together or individually. > > > I also don't see how you can be converting it into a > > mass automatically. > . > No, there is no conversion. {lo} is not marked for > distributivity/nondistributivity. Oh, yes, I had forgotten that your {lo} wasn't. Overall I don't think that it's a good idea to have {lo} not marked. More thought should be given to it before including the English form found in: "The students wore hats and surrounded the building" Much better English starting-points would have been: "The students wore hats and, together, surrounded the building" "Together, the men carried the piano" We don't need to allow this sort of ambiguity - the word "together" need not be 3 syllables in Lojban. But let's put that aside for now, and consider your version. You should be able to say the following: {??? nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} e1: individually, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. e2: individually, all of the group of two men carried the piano e3: together, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. e4: together, all of the group of two men carried the piano additionally, there are now e5 and e6, which are the respective "ambiguous" versions. 1-4 I would say are: 1: {re lo vo nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} 2: {ro lo vo ...} 3: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o re lo vo ...} 4: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o ro lo vo ...} But no! {lo} does not specify "distributivity". So 1 could mean 3, and 2 could mean 4 (based on context I guess). Right? No. It seems that you ... can't have an explicit inner if you want to be ambiguous? So, for {lo}, inner = ambig, outer = individual - so never mind this whole "outer quantifiers are used to make statements about only certain members of a group defined by the inner quantifier" thing? No, I don't see the sense or consistency in your interpretation. Forget distributivity/non distributivity. Before we even consider them, we have to agree on this: the inner says "this is the quantity of the group that I am referring to", and the outer says "this is the number of that group that I am going to say something about". And now we can go about saying something about them, like if they're going to be seen as a group or not. Here's how I interpret various referential statements (noun phrases): (L = lo/le) {L cribe} - "some/all of the bears" some number of some contextually sensible set of bears {L vo cribe} - "some of the four bears" some of the set of (contextually sensible) four bears {vo L cribe} - "four of the bears" four of the most contextually sensible set of bears {L ro cribe} - "some/all of bears" some of *all* bears {ro L cribe} - "all of the bears" all of some contextually sensible group ("all the hats were...") {vo L ro cribe} - "four of bears" (only) four of *all* bears {ro L vo cribe} - "all of the four bears" all four out of the set of (contextually sensible) four bears If the lo/le were loi/lei, then this would mean that whatever these referents were - bears, pianos, men, whatever - they're now just component parts of some unspecified singular entity: {ro loi ci nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} {ro lo ci nanmu} are component parts of *singular* X. X carries the piano. "the thing that is made up of all of three men carries the piano" Which leaves {lu'o}. I interpret it to be a transient attribution of this "as a mass": {lu'o [ro lo mapku] cu [du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri] gi'e ku'i [melbi]} "together, [all of the hats] [were too heavy for me to carry], but [were beautiful]" and {lu'a}, which seems a very hackish way to do the reverse: {lu'a [ro loi mapku] cu [melbi] gi'e ku'i [du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri]} "individually/'split into component parts', [the thing composed of all of the hats] [were beautiful], but [were too heavy for me to carry]" "individually, all the hats were beautiful, but were too heavy for me to carry" although I'd much rather just ditch {lu'a} (and {loi}), and have: all the hats were beautiful, but *they-together* were too heavy for me to carry together, all the hats were too heavy for me to carry, but (they) were beautiful which seems to solve the distrib/nondistrib problems that have come up. I think that what I describe above is a very sensible and consistent way to see this aspect of the language. Perhaps you now agree? If not, then perhaps I'm mistaken when I see this as the better interpretation. So I'll ask, how does your interpretation/version of Lojban handle all of this? I'd specifically like to know how you interpret each of these: {lo cribe} {lo vo cribe} {vo lo cribe} {lo ro cribe} {ro lo cribe} {vo lo ro cribe} {ro lo vo cribe} If a consistent statement regarding what a loi does in each of these can't be provided, then: {loi cribe} {loi vo cribe} {vo loi cribe} {loi ro cribe} {ro loi cribe} {vo loi ro cribe} {ro loi vo cribe} And finally, what {lu'a} and {lu'o} mean to you, if they mean anything. > > > x1 is the mass formed from set x2 with member(s) x3 > > > > If {ro L_ ci mapku} was placed in x1, I would take it to mean that > > each hat was a mass individually. You'd need a {lu'o} or something of > > the sort. > > Right, with an outer quantifier it would say that each > fits the predicate by itself. > 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.