From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jun 16 08:38:06 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 96329 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2005 15:38:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Jun 2005 15:38:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2005 15:38:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DiwOG-0000NJ-BN for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:34:48 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DiwNX-0000MH-Ry; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:34:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DiwNC-0000Lu-LT for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:33:42 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.77]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DiwN1-0000Lh-Vz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:33:42 -0700 Received: (qmail 7291 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jun 2005 15:33:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20050616153330.7289.qmail@web81302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:33:30 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:33:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d1756050616070125b5cf80@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10184 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Again {xorlo} and Wiki. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=pQY79ObhKOLSqGv8sKIfVWS9a1ssrcPxIsBCUW3kIEZbE7YC-Q X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24555 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/16/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > In xorlo, {lo cribe} is > > bears, unspecified in every possible way > > including number (indeed, unspecifiable > without > > changing the sumti) > > Yes! > > > and {lo pa cribe} is an > > uspecified bunch of unit bunches of bears > > (typically by context a single such, I think > -- > > but context is so tricky that "typical" may > not > > be meaningful). > > I won't say that's wrong because you are > probably using > "bunch" in some technical sense, but it doesn't > sound > right with the ordinary meaning of bunch. > Indeed the > inner {pa} excludes bunches of bears. Example: > > lo pa cribe cu tijmau lo re remna > A single bear is heavier than two humans. > > A bunch of bears would be even heavier, of > course, but the > point here is that one bear is heavier than two > humans. Yeah, "bunch" is just a convenient way of bringing uniformity to a large number of cases, including cases where the bunch encompasses only one item (unlike sets, there are no empty bunches). So, the case of {lo pa cribe} amounts to a bunch of single bears -- indirectly, of course, since this is an unquantified {lo} expression. > > In xorlo, {pa lo cribe} still means > > "one out of the referent of {lo cribe}" but > that > > referent is now (albeit indirectly) > definitely at > > least all the bears in the world, so {pa lo > > cribe} amounts to (thouhg by a differnt > route) > > {pa da poi cribe}, as it did in CLL. > > I don't think {pa lo cribe} contains any > implicit "in the world", > but it certainly differs from {lo pa cribe}. > For example: In the universe then? (using "universe" in the technical sense?) I think that this expression ought not be true if there are no bears in whatever is the relevant domain. > pa lo cribe cu tijmau re lo remna > Exactly one bear is heavier than exactly two > humans. > > This means that if we sort bears and humans by > weight, > from lightest to heaviest, the sequence will > start: > > (Zero or more bears here), > Human1, > (Zero or more bears here), > Human2, > Bear1, > Human3, ... > (Any number of bears and humans here). > > That is the only way that exactly one bear > (Bear1) > is heavier than exactly two humans (Human1 and > Human2). > All other bears are either heavier than less > than two humans, > or heavier than more than two humans. > > > Note this > > is different from {lo pa cribe}, which allows > > that more than one bear does whatever pa lo > cribe > > does though still gets translated as/ > translates > > "a/one bear." > > {lo pa cribe} simply does not allow more than > one bear > to enter into the picture. Once you allow more > than one > bear into the picture, {lo pa cribe} is no > longer usable. Well, by thus restricting the picture, it does allow that, outside the frame, there are other bears doing whatever it is. Indeed, given the indefiniteness of {lo pa cribe}, it allows that there are other singleton bears doing it. To be sure, this is not the right way to talk about these constructions: better is just to say "the one-bear type embraces ..." which then can be true of all manner of cases of one bear (token) depending on how we take "embraces." But getting down to the behavior of actual bears is a second step and one that does some harm to the notion that {lo pa cribe} represents.