From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Sep 05 15:23:55 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mk3fl-000863-UF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:23:54 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mk3fg-000853-1w for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:23:53 -0700 Received: (qmail 66878 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Sep 2009 22:23:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252189421; bh=S1D6lLFj8KMsrXiHS8bZykuSs+Xn8wsO0/9nq9NVxzQ=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BSjoE77XPHZauEStGREEvWf4NSM8muz5HPuZ5qI93a3UvALN/2Sio7rMYREwuCWH8NAiuLszz7SYz7rS/cKFue3RdlZQULYcCwt1u6ceC5UwqAx7OXVWkeMrag+o1591jz5SKWBUX+bvF0qIgEKmf+r1/zrQEe70619h/CZ8R+Y= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ScnOdrfAwJH26X/F2ppUsJhVJrgy8BYILUaUaTqomObFyDkDrq3Ip2OgLbhMSgY4wovFdXsN0CrQBSrcMAUMGkH1vbjliG7hjunAliTbBAs02x5tRjRjSXUk0riYiN4/ZVeYxAi1dfZciFbK5ROJvI6MzR73qpchvzqVBLdEKVE=; Message-ID: <245931.66777.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: hqtzwTAVM1mUkHazqw9knxD55d5FBZB_cnoK9YupW3ywZSf7DkoSyv654EjnkHDdpeo15u1xf2pGC_TprLestX1Z1cbvudMQkKWJWnPlUhVGSjw78eQ1M6p4Gmmj2Fu59eMyXcVe5EZakOgn_4b0OuZIzzK5L.WipuIOFzBHl_2SmLpyFfjzBBXsviUjrxg.Dmxss.FrkroG3M6pIS40Sg7D5nDlzNuR0J2DdUIKxg54aLl7GBI4JV02w42_WYdWuAI_UDHWC.q1qInO11.4F87UdAVv1NUmRNq.7O8xqcDp0QZ.BE4Jfqt7iCyC.No1eRb61gODLEie7pjnIQMC.AipFm4KXa.FyaAtlr9DUJoW3XC.sfBFcMkq8yUhH4xZZBcL47QFHWbM4eq22PQ- Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:23:40 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:23:40 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2122036072-1252189420=:66777" X-archive-position: 16083 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0-2122036072-1252189420=:66777 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So, the actor here -- and the patient -- are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban). ________________________________ From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-beginners ; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM Subject: [lojban] xorlo Hello everyone. I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that * Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the referents of the unquantified term. I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one". In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant". Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention? Many thx for any help! Best regards, Squark --0-2122036072-1252189420=:66777 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such:  here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively.  So, the actor here -- and the patient -- are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes.  The individuals *participate  in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'.  What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women.  So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men.  That these five men which are parts of that bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing.  (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).
From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
Subject: [lojban] xorlo

Hello everyone.

I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:


There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that 
  • Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the referents of the unquantified term.
I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra

lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu

Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu

meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
 Squark


    --0-2122036072-1252189420=:66777-- 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.