From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jun 20 09:51:02 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9jpG-0007w5-MH for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:51:02 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9jpB-0007vl-HY for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:51:02 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so693716fga.0 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:50:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=hto5LvOjYrJcEh9lxN2itMJkmcqYfoVww/ivunKWk6g=; b=k19grAC/3ahKPKmxF3EjpjxDb9RhJ5m+UImg3G13AFikGUvw+YJ5oUCX6BSxkYQ5uk youutyg1Sv8Te+Xc4ESl7wk4kvq083YXfPiqEy6FMl+ii5V20BoXnPq1hkKMNczqt/WI uWrW3A9GVod9UIYXWGGcI79Bn0VY4RaxnkyV0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=mBkOWDKxzeTkOoFzA+v6l/8hJt9MO/LZirzJHBaKxkxvcUwB5K28Wylnj+HQmvoDKY HNwFZvuNm+XtYvr1r4lgZOZJDbpr+KWCLdToNJJhl90GZdZcxWjXHShbVvyOEqtRoaSV i01lp6Ko30l+00WetRAEhSUfqjhnPa72vrhwc= Received: by 10.86.29.19 with SMTP id c19mr4188331fgc.28.1213980656119; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560806200950y1a745756v24b874abf03f38f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:50:56 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] termsets and "equal scope" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14528 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list In another message () I discussed one problem of the "equal scope" rule proposed for termsets in CLL , namely that in some cases we don't know whether the rule is to be in effect or not. Here I want to discuss the definition of "equal scope", which I also find problematic. The CLL example is: << 7.5) ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci nu'i ci gerku re nanmu [nu'u] cu batci Three dogs [plus] two men, bite. which picks out two groups, one of three dogs and the other of two men, and says that every one of the dogs bites each of the men. >> For ease of discussion, let me change to a different example. Let's consider the first line of letters of the qwerty keyboard layout: Q W E R T Y U I O P Suppose I say: ci lerfu ce'e re lerfu cu zunle Three letters [plus] two letters, left. According to the CLL explanation, this picks out two groups, one of three letters and the other of two letters, and says that every one of the letters in the first group is to the left of each of the letters in the second group. Is that statement true or false? It's true. For example the groups {Q, W, E} and {R, T} are such that each of the letters in the first group is to the left of each of the letters in the second group. But where does that leave the notion that numerical quantifiers in Lojban are "exact" (meaning that if {ci broda cu brode} is true then {re broda cu brode} is not true)? There are lots of different ways of picking two groups of letters, with three and two, or many other different numbers of members, such that every one of the letters in the first group is to the left of each of the letters in the second group. Perhaps the idea is not to say that there is *some* group of three and *some* group of two, but that there are one and only one of each such groups. In that case, we may consider ci lerfu ce'e ze lerfu cu zunle Three letters [plus] seven letters, left. That would still be true, there is one (and only one) group of three letters and one (and only one) group of seven letters, such that every letter in the first group is to the left of every letter in the second group. But could that really be what is meant? After all, the letter Q is to the left of nine letters, and the letter W is to the left of eight letters. Only the letter E is to the left of exactly seven letters. And only the letter R has exactly three letters such that they are to its left. This modified definition would seem to rescue a partial sense of the "exactness" of numerical quantifiers (at least in the present example), but it still gives odd results. {ce'e} would then not only give "equal scope" to the quantifiers but also introduce groups where there were none. If we want to introduce groups, then we can say: ro lo ci gerku cu batci ro lo re nanmu Each of three dogs bites each of two men. ro lo ci lerfu cu zunle ro lo re lerfu Each of three letters is to the left of each of two letters. and we don't need to stipulate any "equal scope", because two {ro} quantifiers are already independent of order, as CLL mentions in the same section. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.