From sentto-44114-15948-1032628023-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Sep 21 10:09:38 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.70]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17snl8-0006bU-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:09:34 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15948-1032628023-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.94] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2002 17:07:03 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 17:07:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 3045 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 17:07:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 17:07:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 17:07:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.2d.239770f8 (4320) for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2d.239770f8.2abe0133@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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:06:59 EDT Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_boundary" X-archive-position: 1436 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_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_alt_boundary" --part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:48:22 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > I don't recall that being the official line -- indeed, according > to what I do recall, the official line is what you say it isn't. > Is it in Woldy somewhere? >> I can't find it, but I suppose that in the absence of official word to the contrary, logical rules apply, and, in logic, "all x" entails "some x." In addition, xorxes and I just finished a round on the whole mess again, with the upshot that the assumed possition is existential import, with special quantifiers to remove that assumption, and, of course, the logician trick (all x, if ... x, then --- x) as well. << Anyway, even with nonimporting ro, I don't see how {pa lo su'o} differs from {pa lo ro}. >> My point was exactly: there isn't any any more, once the situation was clarified. << I think it is inaccurate to speak of "the Lojban {lo'e}" in distinction to xorxes's and mine. It is not perverse to construe the ma'oste's gloss of {lo'e} as a clumsy attempt to capture the notion of generic reference, and what xorxes and I have been doing is trying to get a handle on generic reference >> Not perverse, but not forced eithere. "the typical x" is a prefectly understandable and used expression in English and different from the "the generic x." Part of the baseline, as I understand it, is that the English text is to be taken as the most accurate description of the Lojban meaning, so I am forced to go with it. Of course, the description of {le'e} supports the official reading, since the two are related in the usual o/e way. As I have said (back there somewhere), I think the official line is a mistake. We could have a more general notion (whether it is the generic one or not I am unsure) and handle several of these oblique references (typical, average, ...) by modifications within its scope. But that requires a relatively clear idea of the function that this general gadri represents. And I have laid that out -- inadequately so far, but plausibly in the light of the corresponding things in English. Meanwhile, I work around the official line. << You're right that it has not been established whether the inner quantifier has the status of presupposition/conventional implicature -- i.e. being outside what is being asserted. However, since Lojban generally does not (or never, even?) use presupposition/conventional implicature, the default should be that the inner cardinality is being asserted. That doesn't stop anyone adducing arguments as to why this default should be overridden, though. >> I take it that existence of {na'i} is itself a recognition of the role of presuppositions and perhaps conventional implicatures. I don't think we have any usage, but my intuition (based on English, and maybe other languages in their philosophical modes) is that getting the number wrong in this way makes any sentence, not just any atomic sentence, false. << If there are more than one broda then {tu'o broda} is ambiguous -- it is underspecified, and to form an interpretation the hearer will have to insert a quantifier. The same goes for when there is only one broda. In other words, {tu'o broda} is neither true nor false, because it expresses an incomplete logical formula. >> I am not sure what this means: {tu'o broda}, not being a sentence even, is necessarily neither true nor false . The two possibilities that come to mind are 1) that you really want this to involve a presupposition or implicature, neither true nor false when its "claim" fails (but it seems to be the same even when it is met) 2) that it is a flag (like {lo'e} in my mind) that the sentence as a whole is a fac,on de parler for some complex expression in which no one piece matches the {tu'o} piece of the surface. If it is like {lo'e}, I would find this plausible, but that association unsupported so far. And I have seen nothing like an account of what the undrlying structure might be, by you. << Yes. It is indispensible because the syntax requires a gadri or quantifier to be present at the start of a sumti. Ideally it would be possible to omit tu'o, but the syntax won't allow it; it's very much analogous to the use of dummy _there_ and _it_ in English to fill obligatory subject positions. >> OK, this is a start at what the underlying structure is, as the English "is" and "there" are marks for siome following complex structure is the real subject. What is flagged here? --part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 8:48:22 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
I don't recall that being the official line -- indeed, according
to what I do recall, the official line is what you say it isn't.
Is it in Woldy somewhere?

>>
I can't find it, but I suppose that in the absence of official word to the contrary, logical rules apply, and, in logic, "all x" entails "some x."  In addition, xorxes and I just finished a round on the whole mess again, with the upshot that the assumed possition is existential import, with special quantifiers to remove that assumption, and, of course, the logician trick (all x, if ... x, then --- x) as well.

<<
Anyway, even with nonimporting ro, I don't see how {pa lo su'o}
differs from {pa lo ro}.
>>
My point was exactly: there isn't any any more, once the situation was clarified.

<<
I think it is inaccurate to speak of "the Lojban {lo'e}" in
distinction to xorxes's and mine. It is not perverse to construe
the ma'oste's gloss of {lo'e} as a clumsy attempt to capture the
notion of generic reference, and what xorxes and I have been doing
is trying to get a handle on generic reference
>>
Not perverse, but not forced eithere.  "the typical x" is a prefectly understandable and used expression in English and different from the "the generic x."  Part of the baseline, as I understand it, is that the English text is to be taken as the most accurate description of the Lojban meaning, so I am forced to go with it. Of course, the description of {le'e} supports the official reading, since the two are related in the usual o/e way. 
As I have said (back there somewhere), I think the official line is a mistake.  We could have a more general notion (whether it is the generic one or not I am unsure) and handle several of these oblique references (typical, average, ...) by modifications within its scope.  But that requires a relatively clear idea of the function that this general gadri represents.  And I have laid that out -- inadequately so far, but plausibly in the light of the corresponding things in English.  Meanwhile, I work around  the official line.

<<
You're right that it has not been established whether the inner
quantifier has the status of presupposition/conventional implicature
-- i.e. being outside what is being asserted.

However, since Lojban generally does not (or never, even?) use
presupposition/conventional implicature, the default should
be that the inner cardinality is being asserted. That doesn't
stop anyone adducing arguments as to why this default should be
overridden, though.
>>
I take it that existence of {na'i} is itself a recognition of the role of presuppositions and perhaps conventional implicatures.  I don't think we have any usage, but my intuition (based on English, and maybe other languages in their philosophical modes) is that getting the number wrong in this way makes any sentence, not just any atomic sentence, false. 

<<
If there are more than one broda then {tu'o broda} is ambiguous
-- it is underspecified, and to form an interpretation the hearer
will have to insert a quantifier. The same goes for when there is
only one broda. In other words, {tu'o broda} is neither true
nor false, because it expresses an incomplete logical formula.
>>
I am not sure what this means: {tu'o broda}, not being a sentence even, is necessarily neither true nor false .  The two possibilities that come to mind are
1) that you really want this to involve a presupposition or implicature, neither true nor false when its "claim" fails (but it seems to be the same even when it is met)
2) that it is a flag (like {lo'e} in my mind) that the sentence as a whole is a fac,on de parler for some complex expression in which no one piece matches the {tu'o} piece of the surface.  If it is like {lo'e}, I would find this plausible, but that association unsupported so far.  And I have seen nothing like an account of what the undrlying structure might be, by you.

<<
Yes. It is indispensible because the syntax requires a gadri or
quantifier to be present at the start of a sumti. Ideally it
would be possible to omit tu'o, but the syntax won't allow it;
it's very much analogous to the use of dummy _there_ and _it_
in English to fill obligatory subject positions.
>>
OK, this is a start at what the underlying structure is, as the English "is" and "there" are marks for siome following complex structure is the real subject. What is flagged here?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_alt_boundary-- --part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILINZA31-0921094822; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:48:22 2000 Received: from n38.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n38.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.106]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZA38-0921094756; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:47:56 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15942-1032616046-pycyn=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n38.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2002 13:47:26 -0000 X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 13:47:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 36671 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 13:47:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 13:47:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 13:47:25 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-121.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.121]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 407EE2088E for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:47:19 +0200 (DST) To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:48:59 +0100 Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pc: > a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: > > << > > I don't see a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}. What > am I missing? > >> > > The {ro}-{su'o} distinction goes back to a time when someone thought > that {ro}, "every," permitted the case of 0 of the whatsis and {su'o} > did not. The first part of this turned out to be false in the > official line (as in Logic), so there is not distinction and we > cannot meaningfully say {lo broda} if there are no broda, nor {lo no > broda} neither. I don't recall that being the official line -- indeed, according to what I do recall, the official line is what you say it isn't. Is it in Woldy somewhere? Anyway, even with nonimporting ro, I don't see how {pa lo su'o} differs from {pa lo ro}. > << > First off, let me note that {lo'e} serves as an adequate alternative > to {tu'o}. So I will recapitulate the reasons for preferring {lo'e} > or {tu'o} to {lo pa}. > >> > The Lojban {lo'e} might, but in a very twisted way -- the typical > member of a class of one is that one member, I suppose (but I bet I > could make a case for otherwise without doing much damage). On the > other hand, xorxes' {lo'e} (which is now yours as well, you say) I think it is inaccurate to speak of "the Lojban {lo'e}" in distinction to xorxes's and mine. It is not perverse to construe the ma'oste's gloss of {lo'e} as a clumsy attempt to capture the notion of generic reference, and what xorxes and I have been doing is trying to get a handle on generic reference. > << > 1. {lo pa} is sensitive to negation: whereas {tu'o broda na brode} > is unproblematic, it corresponds to {lo pa broda na ku brode}, not > to {lo pa broda na brode}. In my view, something that is sensitive > to scope adds complexity to the mental processing of the sentence. > >> > Actually, CLL never mentions this question in dealing with > quantifiers and negation. to be sure, sentences that have the size > of the set wrong are called false, but there is also no evidence I > could find that that would make the {na} denial true. I think it > wore likely that internal quantifiers are ... (I forget the > technical term, "filter?" probably not), that is, they are > preconditions that must be met for the sentences involving them to be > true (I think any sentencewhere this condition is not meant, even the > denial of one false for this reason, is false). Lojban has a > negation for that situation, {na'i}. So, {lo pa} is likely > impervious to {naku} movement, in a way that {pa lo}, for example, is > not (compare the case of {lo no} above, though this could just be a > problem of internal contradiction: "one or more out of none"). You're right that it has not been established whether the inner quantifier has the status of presupposition/conventional implicature -- i.e. being outside what is being asserted. However, since Lojban generally does not (or never, even?) use presupposition/conventional implicature, the default should be that the inner cardinality is being asserted. That doesn't stop anyone adducing arguments as to why this default should be overridden, though. > << > 2. {lo pa} makes a claim. I do not wish it to have to be the case > that whenever I talk about a du'u I also claim that there is only > one du'u. If I say {lo pa broda cu brode} I am claiming that > (i) something is broda and brode, and (ii) the cardinality of > lo'i broda is 1. But I want to be able to claim only (i). > >> > What is the fate of {tu'o broda} if there are moe than one broda? > Will every sentence containing the expression be false or only those > outside the scope of a {naku}? If the former, then it is exactly on > a par with {lo pa}. If the latter, then IT is the one making an > additional claim. If there are more than one broda then {tu'o broda} is ambiguous -- it is underspecified, and to form an interpretation the hearer will have to insert a quantifier. The same goes for when there is only one broda. In other words, {tu'o broda} is neither true nor false, because it expresses an incomplete logical formula. > << > 3. As I have already shown, the point of marking a singleton > category as a singleton category is to help the speaker and > hearer by signalling the greater logical simplicity. It runs > contrary to general principles of form--function iconicity to > signal simplicity of meaning by adding an extra meaningful word > (pa). > >> > But using a meaningless one (and so strictly dispensible) is OK? Yes. It is indispensible because the syntax requires a gadri or quantifier to be present at the start of a sumti. Ideally it would be possible to omit tu'o, but the syntax won't allow it; it's very much analogous to the use of dummy _there_ and _it_ in English to fill obligatory subject positions. --And. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_2d.239770f8.2abe0133_boundary--