From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 16:13:34 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml9sT-0005jU-Jp for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:13:33 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f197.google.com ([209.85.210.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml9sP-0005jC-TU for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:13:33 -0700 Received: by yxe35 with SMTP id 35so9447553yxe.2 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:13:23 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zMwTRTgxzZSyWHtsLLVCJiH/ziJwA4c/E7NqYF3r93Q=; b=fQFjX9jeDdttc+V++Y0fCe/1fMK5gkwGpePZw8VS/4xWsYXrbDVpkP67ZFjnUzOlz0 NTpZtic+0XVDyQzhQVSQwEiicI3AcfPg3yHUwOquVoRuOoD4eIC1TfV3ldQlblLXF/tr SZl0moWCNOZ7NcABAXmx3bo+Wv5BmM7N8ndX0= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=aLoLQXoXqrOqdojzp+znjS4McocQtB5JoQvVKT/1oYpMk7cCixIYbbmL6ZZmHp5DJ1 /Tb8adsLn3i20kaGL0/hLnRQ+tAaAx84hFS5nLXfLg9LVG1oRl+DgKVDNA6ROuoJSq43 rqeRR0DwRAxjby3eVEzrjY7WUCKZ2rkz6HmL4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.129.15 with SMTP id b15mr12324262agd.64.1252451602364; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:13:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@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> <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:13:22 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560909081613o6eec4c9i71c10f8f418e5c17@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 16124 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 On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > LOL, so you are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended! None taken! It's either "Jorge" or "xorxes" though. "xorxe" has gismu form, and while I don't mind the use of unassigned gismu forms as names, some people do object to them. I adopted "xorxes" long before I realized that any gismu forms, assigned or not, are pretty harmless as names, so maybe if I were choosing a Lojban name today I would go with "xorxe", but I'm too used to "xorxes" now to change. > OK, let me take another shot at understanding the gadri proposal. > > lo broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda , I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have a quantifier at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the so called "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the logic sense). "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo prenu cu bajra" would be something like B(p), while a quantified expression like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This may not seem important for such simple examples, but it does make a difference for more complex cases. > masses of broda (or even > sets of broda ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely > different nature). Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use, pick the one you like most. > Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda . The > precise meaning comes from the context. Yes. > 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". No, there is no outer quantifier at all. It's a constant. Possibly a plural constant, with more than one referent. > 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. I agree that allowing there to be ghost quantifiers is a bad idea. > 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)". I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like possible readings. > 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". "lo mu nanmu" is just "five men". I'm not sure what all those masses are doing there. > 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"? "mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full bridi. A quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until you give a bridi. For example: mu lo nanmu cu bajra means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of them are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without the full bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of the referents of "lo nanmu". > m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". m of them what? Until you put it in a bridi, it doesn't really mean anything. > Hmm, I don't > like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? The outer quantifier works the same for any sumti. It tells you for how many of the referents of the sumti will the bridi be true. If the sumti is "le mu nanmu", then the referents in question are the five men that the speaker has in mind. If the sumti is "lo mu nanmu", then the referent may be five men the speaker has in mind, but it might also be more generic. > 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 ? Maybe that's why those forms are not used much. Let's say "two out of three persons who will be chosen at random will do one thing, and the remaining person will do something else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I don't have anyone in mind as to who the three persons chosen at random will be. > loi broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and > lo broda It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi" indicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied collectively, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the other. > loi n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses > of broda of size n (each). Same comment as before: no quantifier, it's a constant. > m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses > of broda out of the specific masses of broda"? To me it means "m lo gunma be lo 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"? "m lo gunma be lo n 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). No quantifier, they are constants. But I don't use sets so I don't care much. > m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out > of the specific sets of broda"? Yes, according to me it's "m lo selcmi be lo 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"? Yes, "m lo selcmi be lo n broda" (I deleted the "le" cases, because the comments are all basically the same.) > Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. These are also not really quantifiers in a logical sense. > 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. Not sure what you mean there. > 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)". "su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa loi nanmu", ät least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh. > 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. If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a group. A selbri meaning ïs a group" should be used. > 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? "pa pi ro" is a single number with three "digits". No idea what number it is though. Perhaps it's equivalent to 2. 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.