From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 10:33:04 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlR2W-0003EF-2P for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:33:04 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlR2R-0003DR-RF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:33:03 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so5276674ewy.0 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:32:53 -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=LKbyWK1XyjpgU3qweP1zxlKOOnO/ib8R+Wec7bu+KKU=; b=cwIp4qv9DNQoAqTT9QEXqjiuaiKZlj5TWRybxkO6DCAX43A6XqxU0BLZE7LN0Zi7wH 8SfDrOaRbcr3epl4HzPl5zRLKuihhRBPgCgs5XkWaTy+Kb3IMha6RaDZ/zQe4fB/QR1Q RkV0HpUMMPCtvl7qp4vtwHXSXLx2yMQ8QDXe8= 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=fo9fSivGrkKF8apB7mNGU3Hd9z7vds6JIYwHWL+cRMypvV2GyE5HT7bgaLCix38v+K KRYDXklVu2u0M1sa67X/YPXochVcUyhK6VZ0ED5gKQEy0MLPfOqP9SUvd2vzOq8WwA/a pXcH4pvC4CzLpZ3hhk9MqBaHO9ba8difT6TtA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.157.11 with SMTP id j11mr4976942ebo.63.1252517573484; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:32:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560909081613o6eec4c9i71c10f8f418e5c17@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> <925d17560909081613o6eec4c9i71c10f8f418e5c17@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:32:53 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909091032h9c4c838x4addad9337e10f18@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502caac0ae18c0473287980 X-archive-position: 16131 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 --00504502caac0ae18c0473287980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2009/9/9 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich > wrote: > > lo broda=C3=A1can mean any quantifier applied to broda=C3=A1, > > 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. > I don't understand. Consider the sentence *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* The English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)"= . What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the additio= n of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The possible meanings are "A man carries the piano(s)"* "*Some men carry the piano(s)" "Many men carry the piano(s)" "Most men carry the piano(s)" "All men carry the piano(s)" et cetera, and also variants with "the", although why would we use *lo*rather than *le* for these? Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence contains a context-dependent quantifier. > > masses of broda=C3=A1(or even > > sets of broda=C3=A1?! that would be weird since a set is an object of e= ntirely > > 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 =3D 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. > I don't understand the practical difference between the views. When I say *= lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together= ? If so, what is the difference between that and saying *loi nanmu cu bevri *= ? Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying the piano together? > > For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno=C3=A1can 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=C3=A1man carries the piano(s= )". > > I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like > possible readings. > If *lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno* can mean that the men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and doing it individually. Am I wrong? > > m=C3=A1lo broda means "m=C3=A1individual broda". This is way more speci= fic than the > > previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m=C3=A1broda=C3=A1out 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". > I understand that you have to put in a *bridi* . I was speaking imprecisely= , for brevity's sake. What about *mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* ? Can they carry the piano(s) together? > It doesn't > > appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n=C3=A1br= oda=C3=A1. > "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=C3=A1. Two perso= ns 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=C3=A1? > > 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. > I agree it might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative clause is attached. > > > loi broda=C3=A1means... 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. > Consider *loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* . Does it mean that the men carry th= e piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups? If th= e later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with *lo* . If the former, does it make it the same as *pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* ? > > For example=C3=A1su'o re pixa loi > > nanmu cu bevri le pipno=C3=A1means "at least two groups of men exist su= ch 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", =C5=84t least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh. > Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer quantifier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction quantifiers as well? > 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 =C2=B4s a group" should be used. > So now you're saying *loi* only indicates joint action or joint whatever, not grouping in any other sense. But *lo* can indicate "joint whatever" as well. What is the difference? Also, what is the meaning of *pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has t= o be something else. However, you also claim *loi* cannot be used to indicate such an additional group relationship. --00504502caac0ae18c0473287980 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2009/9/9 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmai= l.com>
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> lo broda=C3= =A1can mean any quantifier applied to broda=C3=A1,

I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn&#= 39;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 &q= uot;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.

I don't und= erstand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The Englis= h translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)&q= uot;. What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the a= ddition of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context.= The possible meanings are
"A man carries the piano(s)"
"Some men carry the p= iano(s)"
"Many men carry the piano(s)"
"Most men = carry the piano(s)"
"All men carry the piano(s)"
et ce= tera, and also variants with "the", although why would we use = lo rather than le for these?
Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, si= nce "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the= sentence contains a context-dependent quantifier.
=C2=A0
> masses of broda=C3=A1(or even
> sets of broda=C3=A1?! 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<= br> 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&quo= t; is taken as
(1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is sil= ent on
distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi =3D lo gunma be lo" theory)= then
"lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a differe= nt type of
entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,<= br> pick the one you like most.

I don't understand= the practical difference between the views. When I say lo nanmu cu bevr= i le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together? If so, w= hat is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu bevri ? D= oes the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying = the piano together?
=C2=A0
> For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno=C3=A1can mean anything from "= ;a man carries
> the piano(s)" or "several groups of men ca= rry the piano(s)" to "all men
> carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "the=C3=A1man ca= rries the piano(s)".

I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all s= eem like
possible readings.

If lo nanmu cu beveri le pip= no can mean that the men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably = can also mean they carry it/them divided into several groups, which is a mi= ddle state between doing it all together and doing it individually. Am I wr= ong?
=C2=A0
> m=C3=A1lo broda means "m=C3=A1individual broda". This is way= more specific than the
> previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m=C3=A1broda=C3=A1out = of the specific
> broda"?

"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full brid= i. A
quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until<= br> you give a bridi. For example:

=C2=A0 mu lo nanmu cu bajra

means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of th= em
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".

I understand th= at you have to put in a bridi . I was speaking imprecisely, for brev= ity's sake. What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they = carry the piano(s) together?

> It doesn't
> appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n=C3=A1b= roda=C3=A1. "a
> person out of some three person" is strange, be= cause 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=C3=A1. Tw= o 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=C3=A1?

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<= br> will be.

I agree it might in principle make sense = if an inner incidental relative clause is attached.
=C2=A0

> loi broda=C3=A1means... 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 th= e
other.

Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno= . Does it mean that the men carry the piano together, as a single group? O= r can it refer to several groups? If the later, each group can consist of o= ne individual, in which case we are back to individuals. Hence we get the s= ame thing as with lo . If the former, does it make it the same as pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ?
=C2=A0
> For example=C3=A1su'o re pixa loi
> nanmu cu bevri le pipno=C3=A1means "at least two groups of men ex= ist such that
> 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".

"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think yo= u mean "su'o re lo pi xa
loi nanmu", =C5=84t least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.

Does it mean I can't use a regular= outer quantifier and a fractional outer quantifier simultaneously? Do I un= derstand correctly we have inner fraction quantifiers as well?

> I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying t= he
> 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 constitu= te a
group. A selbri meaning =C2=B4s a group" should be used.

So now you're saying loi only indicates joint action= or joint whatever, not grouping in any other sense. But lo can indi= cate "joint whatever" as well. What is the difference? Also, what= is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? "60% of a= group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "grou= p"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be something e= lse. However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such an = additional group relationship.

--00504502caac0ae18c0473287980-- 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.