From sentto-44114-15745-1032186165-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Sep 16 07:24:52 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 16 Sep 2002 07:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n17.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.72]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17qwnw-0003K2-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 07:24:48 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15745-1032186165-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2002 14:22:45 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 16 Sep 2002 14:22:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 74482 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 14:22:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2002 14:22:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 14:22:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.8c.1e32fa76 (4584) for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8c.1e32fa76.2ab7432f@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:22:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8c.1e32fa76.2ab7432f_boundary" X-archive-position: 1233 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_8c.1e32fa76.2ab7432f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 3:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > >We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to > >say > >regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like > >{lo'e > >broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that > >relies > >on le du'u ce'u broda > > I won't deny that until I see the complex hypothetical claim > expressed in Lojban. Unless it is so hypothetical that it can't > be expressed, in which case I have no problem with it. :) >> The difficulty in expressing it is Lojban is probably a major reason why we have {lo'e} at all. But I am not about to get kicked around again trying to work out Lojban hypotheticals and their kin. When someone else gets that right, I will be happy to do these in Lojban. In the meantime, I offer the English versions and a willingness to expand on any point that is unclear (well, I am not sure I can do much with "typically," but "everybody knows what that means" -- whichj is why it is so hard to expand). << >and says something about the members of lo'i broda. I think a claim using {lo'e broda} does not claim anything about any particular member of lo'i broda, and it would make sense even in the extreme cases when there are no members. >> I couldn't agree more, at least for unqualified {lo'e} in your sense. For Lojban {lo'e} and "the average" and the like (which I would now take as "tensed" {lo'e} -- using {na'o}, for example, for the current Lojban {lo'e}" {lo'e na'o broda}) the set is treated as a whole, not member by member; not, generally, even counted out: "brodas typically brode" is not {PA broda cu brode}. With {le'e}, of course, even this reliance on existence disappears -- there are stereotypical typical and average unicorns as well as generic ones. << >In >xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what >the >essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are. I'm not sure I understand the point here. Saying {mi nelci lo'e cakla} does not claim that my liking chocolate is essential to chocolate (nor that it is typical of chocolate, for that matter). It does not preclude either that my liking of chocolate comes from my liking of what some might consider some non-essential feature of chocolate: maybe I like chocolate because it brings back memories of something, but bringing memories of something would not be an essential property of chocolate. So I don't understand what essential properties have to do with my position. The only property involved as I see it is {le ka ce'u cakla}. >> Well, the double abstraction involved here makes it a little hard to follow. There are two outs, as usual: {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, were it legal, would say that my liking it is an essential property of chocolates, or I would like any chocolate whatsoever -- the generic chocolate, without further qualifications. Of course, {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, etc., says nothing about WHY I like chocolates (the standrd form is a little more precise here, but not much); these may be non-nuclear properties of chocolates like the memories they revive; but that has no effect on the claim. It is precisely because the only property involved is le du'u ce'u cakla (and all that that entails). If other properties were involved, we would no longer be talking about the generic chocolate -- just as we are not when we shift over to "typical" or "average" or.... << << >It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation, >so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the >next sentence > >> >Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much, >and >you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}. I can do it grammatically, yes. It just doesn't make any sense logically. >> On the contrary, these are just the two ways that Logic has to deal with the problem. The run-on sentence approach is a little easier, but the anaphora move is slightly more flexible (it can run into someone else's contribution, for example). << >You can also use anaphora (if >it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or >you can tag even {da} with {goi}. But referring back to a bound variable outside the binding context returns nonsense. >> Not obviously nonsense, jut uninterpreted. But the point is that as long as you are hooked up to that variable, you are not outside its scope: the anaphoric particle varies in reference with the original. << Consider for example: noda zo'u da klama Nobody came. What does {le go'i} refer to? What if we express it as: roda zo'u da naku klama >> {da} in both cases. --part1_8c.1e32fa76.2ab7432f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 3:06:26 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
>We are left with what I take to be true and also what xorxes is trying to
>say
>regardless of how often he rejects it: {lo'e broda} for xorxes is like
>{lo'e
>broda} in Lojban in that it signals a complex hypothetical claim that
>relies
>on le du'u ce'u broda

I won't deny that until I see the complex hypothetical claim
expressed in Lojban. Unless it is so hypothetical that it can't
be expressed, in which case I have no problem with it. :)

>>
The difficulty in expressing it is Lojban is probably a major reason why we have {lo'e} at all.  But I am not about to get kicked around again trying to work out Lojban hypotheticals and their kin.  When someone else gets that right, I will be happy to do these in Lojban.  In the meantime, I offer the English versions and a willingness to expand on any point that is unclear (well, I am not sure I can do much with "typically," but "everybody knows what that means"  -- whichj is why it is so hard to expand).

<<
>and says something about the members of lo'i broda.

I think a claim using {lo'e broda} does not claim anything about
any particular member of lo'i broda, and it would make sense even
in the extreme cases when there are no members.
>>
I couldn't agree more, at least for unqualified {lo'e} in your sense.  For Lojban {lo'e} and "the average" and the like (which I would now take as "tensed" {lo'e} -- using {na'o}, for example, for the current Lojban {lo'e}" {lo'e na'o broda}) the set is treated as a whole, not member by member; not, generally, even counted out: "brodas typically brode" is not {PA broda cu brode}.  With {le'e}, of course, even this reliance on existence disappears -- there are stereotypical typical and average unicorns as  well as generic ones.

<<
>In
>xorxes' case (barring the not yet forthcoming better story) it says what
>the
>essential features are, in Lojban what the typical features are.

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Saying {mi nelci lo'e
cakla} does not claim that my liking chocolate is essential to
chocolate (nor that it is typical of chocolate, for that matter).
It does not preclude either that my liking of chocolate comes from
my liking of what some might consider some non-essential feature
of chocolate: maybe I like chocolate because it brings back
memories of something, but bringing memories of something would not
be an essential property of chocolate. So I don't understand what
essential properties have to do with my position. The only property
involved as I see it is {le ka ce'u cakla}.
>>
Well, the double abstraction involved here makes it a little hard to follow.  There are two outs, as usual: {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, were it legal, would say that my liking it is an essential property of chocolates, or I would like any chocolate whatsoever -- the generic chocolate, without further qualifications.  Of course, {mi nelci lo'e cakla}, etc., says nothing about WHY I like chocolates (the standrd form is a little more precise here, but not much); these may be non-nuclear properties of chocolates like the memories they revive; but that has no effect on the claim.
It is precisely because the only property involved is le du'u ce'u cakla (and all that that entails).  If other properties were involved, we would no longer be talking about the generic chocolate -- just as we are not when we shift over to "typical" or "average" or....

<<
<<
>It has the quantifier of {da} within the scope of the negation,
>so that I can't continue talking about the same "one" in the
>next sentence
> >>
>Well, CLL waffles on that, so, if you did it, no one would complain much,
>and
>you can always use {ice} rather than just {i}.

I can do it grammatically, yes. It just doesn't make any sense
logically.
>>
On the contrary, these are just the two ways that Logic has to deal with the problem. The run-on sentence approach is a little easier, but the anaphora move is slightly more flexible (it can run into someone else's contribution, for example).

<<
>You can also use anaphora (if
>it is possible to use Lojban anaphora reliably): {le go'i} or {ra} or ...Or
>you can tag even {da} with {goi}.

But referring back to a bound variable outside the binding
context returns nonsense.
>>
Not obviously nonsense, jut uninterpreted.  But the point is that as long as you are hooked up to that variable, you are not outside its scope: the anaphoric particle varies in reference with the original.

<<
Consider for example:

           noda zo'u da klama
           Nobody came.

What does {le go'i} refer to? What if we express it as:

    roda zo'u da naku klama
>>
{da} in both cases.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_8c.1e32fa76.2ab7432f_boundary--