From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Wed Sep 18 08:06:13 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rgP5-0000md-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:11 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8IFAWwD008098 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8IFAWUs008097 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Message-ID: <20020918151032.GA7613@allusion.net> References: <19d.8e35557.2ab9e5d9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19d.8e35557.2ab9e5d9@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1296 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:21:13AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/18/2002 8:44:35 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@fre= e.fr=20 > writes: [...] > > la xorxes cusku di'e> > > > To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes > > > a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification > > > of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how > > > you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts > > > if you don't think so. > >=20 > > I am lost here: I thought the grammar said clearly that in > > {da zo'u broda tu'a da} the {da zo'u} could be freely omitted > > with no change in semantic, and so I don't see how > > {broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts > > or not. Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you > > agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts. > > Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have > > to be different? >=20 > The grammar clearly says a number of things that are not so in at least s= ome=20 > cases (the most famous is that {a broda b} =3D (b se broda a} , which doe= s not=20 > hold when a and b are bound in place with different quantifiers: {ro da p= rami=20 > de}, "Everybody loves somebody" is not the same as {de se prami ro da} "T= here=20 > is at least one persom whom everybody loves"). =20 [ note to lionel: the default quantifier on da/de/di is su'o, which is where the ambiguity comes from: ] This doesn't support that a broda b !=3D b se broda a in the general case. This merely shows that there is a different most-likely interpretation of the quantification of the da/de/di variables based on their order. Either of those two sentences *could* be interpreted as the other, but le gerku cu batci mi is precisely the same as mi se batci le gerku; both in possible meanings and in the most-likely interpretation. Furthermore, though the word order leads to different likely interpretation it doesn't change the possible meanings. ro da prami de Can mean "Everyone loves >=3Done other (the same) person" just as much as it can mean "Everyone loves someone (else)". Your mearly cheating with su'o to try to claim the grammar doesn't fully explain this. The non-ambiguous ways to make the two claims are: ro da poi prenu cu prami lo drata be vo'a Everyone loves someone other than themselves. (in practice the be vo'a would likely be elided and inferred through a zo'e). ro da poi prenu cu prami le su'o prenu Everyone loves the one-or-more persons. These two claims *are* the exact same if you flip the terms. (Except the former requires changing the vo'a to a vo'e). > As for the quantifier bit, the grammar of intensional contexts has not be= en=20 > redefined, mainly because CLL does so little about defining it. So we sa= y=20 > "clarified" instead of "changed." In any case, we would not want to go f= rom=20 > {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} "I need a nail" (and any old one will do) to {da= poi=20 > dinko zo'u mi nitcu da} "There is one particular nail I need" (or "some= =20 > particular nails" but, in any case, nothing off the list will do). There= are=20 > worse cases, where the embedded reference is to a non-existent, but the= =20 > external reference is to an existent: {mi senva le du'u lo pavyselrorne k= lama=20 > mi} might well be true, but {da poi pavyselrorne zo'u mi sevna le du'u d= a=20 > klama mi} is not, since there are no unicorns. [ what's a rorne? ] I was discussing this point with some people on IRC a while back, and bunk I say! bunk! Of course unicorns exist: they're concepts. If I say {mi djica lenu lo pavyseljirna cu klama ti} there's nothing wrong with the bridi, as I really do desire that su'o lo ro pavyseljirna come (even if ro =3D 0; the su'o is just the number I'm wanting). zo'o mi nelci le su'o su'o pavyseljirna cu zasti .i zo'o lo no pavyseljirna cu zasti Additionally, certainly you can dream a unicorn klama do, as unicorns *do* exist in dreams. With: da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi senva ledu'u da klama mi says "there is a unicorn such that I dreamt it came to me". Which (assuming the speaker isn't lying) is perfectly fine. That pavyseljirna exists as whatever it is that dreams/concepts are from a biological standpoint, etc. It should be noted also, that if I had actually had a dream, since I have the unicorn in mind already, the better sentence would be mi senva ledu'u le pavyseljirna cu klama mi Ok I'm done rambling about this stuff for now. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9iJdnDrrilS51AZ8RAicrAJ9XvqYkNxY9B6Yihcx3H1pbkhUP8gCgvcni moZEiv79pWehdDlVttGpcn0= =vkIa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62--