From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Sep 06 00:06:42 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkBpi-0005yI-4Q for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:06:42 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MkBpd-0005y6-9R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:06:41 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so1989420ewy.0 for ; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:06:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=B4/pRW/yrTZWHNCICTlocbaIy5pM0KesqP82ctK+F3s=; b=V7UsDPhemrDL4xTBozp7iDPd9sVlpu9GYo+p9dtICnchAUyty+wNpzfMg+Jh03lzj8 lopE8e1oUd4a9HTy+VyJnV0GuVuD3Y3lzQXJbJ+VCVmDhRguhJhn4u7L/oJ2wWrCUM9h Juh9ifGu5gLxEy3Vhrv3iL6DDg5nHY+7Tu0Yo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=vqGRTVZa3q/eNZI0w/52cR1McrosRGe6+hseOjL/IiBILtWUgYB2gxOz38Sg26hgEv joDi1zD5iieSIBsGpwcx+96BrMes5RVRpKa5po4acArL1Y8xChQ7HOeeqX4kfZwTToIB 6eCB0kL7A+PZrW99l5j9RWucOGcyjkz+z4TMI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.146.2 with SMTP id y2mr14693059ebn.77.1252220790938; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:06:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <245931.66777.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <245931.66777.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:06:30 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909060006n4b03dfcdra0c29c5f7bad8ba0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a2826c9ed60472e35f2f X-archive-position: 16084 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --001636c5a2826c9ed60472e35f2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Then, what is the difference between *lo mu nanmu* and *loi mu nanmu* ? Actually, what *loi mu nanmu* means in xorlo? A single mass of 5 women/girls, or an unspecified number of masses of women/girls? If the later, can we say that *lo mu nanmu* = *pa loi mu nanmu* ? On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:23 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > --001636c5a2826c9ed60472e35f2f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Then, what is the difference between lo mu nanmu=A0= and loi mu nanmu=A0? Actually, what loi mu nanmu=A0means in x= orlo? A single mass of 5 women/girls, or an unspecified number of masses of= women/girls? If the later, can we say that lo mu nanmu=A0=3D pa = loi mu nanmu=A0?

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:23 AM, John E Cliff= ord <kali9putr= a@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't eve= n 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 tha= t they collectively acted such and such:=A0 here, talked to the bunch of th= ree women also collectively.=A0 So, the actor here -- and the patient -- ar= e not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes.=A0 The ind= ividuals *participate=A0 in the conversation, but that participation may be= no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'= .=A0 What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individu= al level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of th= e 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.=A0 So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a= constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five m= en.=A0 That these five men which are parts of that bunch, can also act in s= imilar ways does make the bunch a single thing.=A0 (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-beginn= ers@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=A0a= cquainted=A0with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:
=

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now = have that=A0
  • Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a=A0constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it=A0refers=A0to one or more individuals, and changing the order = in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respe= ct to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A cons= tant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For exa= mple {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da br= ode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier=A0mu, 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 cann= ot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of t= hings over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantifi= ed, 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=A0refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu=A0re= fers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before x= orlo, the default outer quantifier of lo=A0was su'o=A0thu= s the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to a= t 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.=A0Similarly, before= xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu
meant that all=A0of the men talk to all=A0of= the women, since the default outer quantifier of le=A0was ro= . What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at = least one"? Or is it context=A0defendant, and the phrases could mean a= nything? 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 logical= ly=A0necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo=A0becoming "generi= c"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

=
Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
=A0Squark



    --001636c5a2826c9ed60472e35f2f-- 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.