From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 14:32:03 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8IE-0005tm-3R for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:32:02 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f217.google.com ([209.85.219.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8I9-0005tD-Iu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:32:01 -0700 Received: by ewy17 with SMTP id 17so427835ewy.15 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:31:50 -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=b6an3VaEUJ5cJm8IbGzfBqrRN5SR4au+rFQ4/Dr0LTU=; b=YUtsQ6lwaoqRRE2jympWC2e29xYLfQWZHAoSbmCVODljMIcON+HBIOsCCEZvuxIAUm BKyax/j1IWAx4PEbMBgPTk+SOYhAiNKcn0Tt8wQdBa0yOBvZIFePSpEvVUDSd7o95Ct0 kiGBZTvfdtDf1dBS9M6IH2bQ9nJwAHrqHE6N4= 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=JpphEuJ13wEwJaauCH/1hNjvEJf6QlSgAkxFvgcg88t2+Cpy3S9xxtLGui9pZLxbV7 SMM6YrC5BMlL27B4fPF3J/VOanxBUaLPAXZismDaFxf+oLkcmsWV2RoltexfH4hoQ1eF ZC0J6BvsSe18pZmhfYW2XMcxZNgZbG/zXeckg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.206.12 with SMTP id d12mr3086884ebg.32.1252445510861; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:31:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560909081321x34f3faa1u40106c6ed49b5972@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909080221h297baa5eqb5eba2ad6ac1d5d5@mail.gmail.com> <200909080827.14128.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909081321x34f3faa1u40106c6ed49b5972@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:31:50 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163600cf8cc68601047317b126 X-Spam_score: 0.6 X-Spam_score_int: 6 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: LOL, so *you* are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended! OK, let me take another shot at understanding the *gadri* proposal. *lo broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* , masses of *broda* (or even sets of *broda* ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic * broda* . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one *broda*" but not "exactly one *broda*" or "at most one *broda*". At least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seemsX-archive-position: 16114 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 --00163600cf8cc68601047317b126 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 LOL, so *you* are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended! OK, let me take another shot at understanding the *gadri* proposal. *lo broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* , masses of *broda* (or even sets of *broda* ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic * broda* . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one *broda*" but not "exactly one *broda*" or "at most one *broda*". At least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first. For example, *lo nanmu bevri le pipno* can mean anything from "a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "*the* man carries the piano(s)". *lo **n** broda* can mean either "*n* *broda *, divided into masses in the way (whatever)" (*n* *broda* regarded individually is a special case where each mass consists of 1 *broda*) or "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / masses of *broda* out of the *n* *broda*". *m* *lo broda *means "*m* individual *broda*". This is way more specific than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the *m* *broda* out of the specific *broda*"? *m* *lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use le ?* *loi broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and *lo broda* *loi **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of *broda* of size *n* (each). *m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda"?* *m* *loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?* *lo'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of *broda* *lo'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of *broda* of size *n* (each). *m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda"?* *m* *lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?* *le broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* or masses of *broda* but these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial) *le **n** broda* means "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / masses of *broda* out of the specific *n* *broda*". *m* *le broda *means "*m* individual *broda* out of the specific *broda*". *m* *le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".* *lei broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and *le broda* *lei **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of * broda* of size *n* (each). *m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda".* *m* *lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specific masses of broda are there?* *le'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *broda* *le'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of * broda* of size *n* (each). *m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".* *m* *le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of broda are there?* Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of *broda*, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example *su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means "at least two groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)". I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have to say *pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno* . On the other hand, if we say *pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno* rather than *pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno* , it is possible that the context implies that all of the men in the group *are* involved in carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right? --00163600cf8cc68601047317b126 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

LOL, so=A0you=A0are xorxe. = Sorry: no offense=A0intended!

= OK, let me take= another shot at understanding the gadri=A0proposal.

lo broda=A0can mean any quantifier applie= d to broda=A0, masses of broda=A0(or even sets of broda=A0?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different n= ature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda=A0. The = precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the qu= antifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at lea= st one broda" but not "exactly one broda" or &= quot;at most one broda". At least this seems a reasonable const= raint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to= let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is th= e exact opposite of the first.
For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno=A0can mean anything from "= a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the p= iano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean &= quot;the=A0man carries the piano(s)".

lo n=A0broda=A0can mean eit= her "n=A0broda , divided into masses in the way (whateve= r)" (n=A0broda=A0regarded individually is a special case= where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier)= of broda=A0/ masses of broda=A0out of the n=A0brod= a".

m=A0lo broda means "m= =A0individual broda". This is way more specific than the previo= us constructs. Can it also mean "the m=A0broda=A0out of = the specific broda"?

m=A0lo n=A0broda=A0means "m=A0individual broda= =A0out of the n=A0broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is t= he difference between this and=A0m=A0le=A0n=A0broda=A0? It doesn't appea= r to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n=A0broda=A0. &= quot;a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should= we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the mea= ning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno=A0. Two = persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unle= ss it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why w= ouldn't we use le=A0?

loi broda=A0means... Hmm, I don't see= what's the difference between this and lo broda

loi=A0n=A0broda=A0can mean = any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of broda=A0of= size n=A0(each).

m=A0loi broda=A0means "m=A0masses of broda".= =A0Can it also mean "m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0out of the = specific masses of=A0broda"?

m=A0loi=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0of= size n".=A0Can it also mean "m=A0masses of=A0br= oda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific masses of=A0broda"?=

= lo'i broda=A0can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or spec= ific) sets of broda

lo'i=A0n=A0broda=A0= can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of=A0broda= =A0of size=A0n=A0(each).

m=A0lo'i broda=A0means "m=A0sets of=A0broda= ".=A0Can it also mean "m=A0sets of=A0broda=A0out of= the specific sets of=A0broda"?=

m=A0lo'i=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"m=A0sets of=A0broda= =A0of size=A0n".=A0Can it also mean "m=A0sets of=A0= broda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific sets of=A0broda"?

le broda=A0can mean any quantifier app= lied to=A0broda=A0or masses of=A0broda=A0but these have to be= specific (and it's not veridicial)

= le=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"(whatever quantifier) o= f=A0broda=A0/ masses of=A0broda=A0out of the specific=A0n<= /b>=A0broda".

m=A0le broda=A0means "= m=A0individual=A0broda=A0out of the specific=A0broda"= ;.

m=A0le=A0n=A0broda=A0means "m=A0individual= =A0broda=A0out of the specific=A0n=A0broda".<= /b>

lei broda=A0means... Hmm, I don't= see what's the difference between this and=A0le broda

lei=A0n=A0broda=A0can m= ean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of=A0broda=A0of size= =A0n=A0(each).

m=A0lei broda=A0means "m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0= out of the specific masses of broda".<= /span>

m=A0lei=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0= of size=A0n=A0out of the specific masses of broda". Hmm,= does it mean there is no way to say how many specific masses of broda=A0are there?

= le'i broda=A0can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets = of=A0broda

le'i=A0n=A0broda=A0= can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of=A0broda=A0of s= ize=A0n=A0(each).

m=A0le'i broda=A0means "m=A0sets of=A0broda= =A0out of the specific sets of broda".=

m=A0le'i=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"m=A0sets of=A0broda= =A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific sets of broda".=A0D= oes it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of=A0broda= =A0are there?

Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I= guess they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of <= i>broda, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable int= o the=A0predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For exampl= e=A0su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno=A0means "at le= ast two groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)&= quot;. I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might b= e entirely uninvolved in carrying the piano. This means that the factor uni= fying these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano toge= ther. So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 m= en carries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has s= omething to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have= to say pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno=A0. On the other hand, if w= e say pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno=A0rather than pa pisu'o loi= nanmu bevri le pipno=A0, it is possible that the context implies that = all of the men in the group are=A0involved in carrying the piano aft= er all. Did I get this right?

--00163600cf8cc68601047317b126-- 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.