From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 07 14:43:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63732 invoked from network); 7 May 2006 21:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2006 21:33:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2006 21:33:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcqrU-00070Z-VP for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 07 May 2006 14:32:21 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fcqqn-0006zw-C1; Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcqqM-0006zl-GP for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:10 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcqqL-0006ze-73 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:10 -0700 Received: (qmail 33242 invoked by uid 60001); 7 May 2006 21:31:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20060507213108.33240.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:08 PDT Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 14:31:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11427 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: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=JJ34aU_y-chS7zQdHSY9LOPAbEc_9PaJtNDWM5cUKifaNRw4-g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25843 Let me summarize where thing lie at the moment and where various people are trying to make them go. I omit Maxim's, partly because I don't think they have really settled down yet and partly because I am not at all sure I understand where they are at the moment. Officially: {le} and {lo} are distinguished by specificity. In addition (as a consequence of inspecificity, so it can be taken as pointing somewhere), what is referred by {lo broda} to must be a broda. On the other hand, what is referred to by {le broda} does not have to be a broda (though its being a broda is the best reason for calling it one). This is a consequence of specificity: we have the referent picked out already and the description merely gives it a tag -- one that will help others to find the right thing as well (the correct tag will sometimes -- maybe even often -- interfere with finding the right thing: calling Juno a man rather than a woman, while correct would not lead to Juno, since others identified her(him) as a woman). The implicit quantifiers on {le} are {su'o} internally and {ro} externally. The implicit quantifiers on {lo} are just the reverse. So an explicit internal quantifier on {lo} gives the number of all the whatevers in the world, while one on {le} just tells how many thingies the speaker has in mind. External quantifers are partitive, how many out of the totality given by the internal quantifer are being spoken of here. {lo,le,la} are about individuals taken separately, that is, what is predicated of a sumti of these sorts is predicated of each ultimate referent of that sumti taken individually. In contrast, {loi, lei, lai} are about "masses," one of those words that Loglan/Lojban has taken over from some fairly precise meaning -- I think "mass noun" -- and used differently and without a very clear meaning. Among the things that examples suggest as falling under this notion -- and which others have elevated at one time or another to the main meaning of {loi} etc. expressions are 1) {loi broda cu brode} says of some brodas that although no one of them brodes, taken together they do (e.g. surround a building as the brode), all of them participating in the event. 2) the corporation of brodas -- like 1 in that no one member does it but unlike 1 in that {loi broda} may remain the same even if the brodas referred to change and the corporation may do things in which some -- or even all -- of its members do not participate (GM makes cars although many members of GM don't work on cars, the Red Sox won the pennant although all management and some players on the roster did not ever play any baseball)(Species are either in this group or something very similar.). 3) The mass noun related to {broda} (which, in Lojban, is always count), the goo into which brodas dissolve under pressure and of which they may be taken as slices (the "gavagai" jokes and, after the accident, "there was dog all over the car). There are probably others I have forgotten ("myopic individuals" or some such that I never understood, for example). In any case, they lVi sumti are not about individuals taken separately. {lo'i, le'i, la'i} are for Cantor sets of individuals of the noted sort. Like the lVi series they preserve the disntions among the simple e, o, and a gadri. The way changes are going (this may not be a completely accurate presentation of all the view, since I am a partisan here and also don't really understand some moves by others). A. The lV'i series for sets was needed in the olden days because standard logic had (that it was aware of) no way of dealing with plurals than by sets (which are singular but encompass many). Of course, in that same standard logic talk about sets had no (very straightforward) way to deal with the properties of the members of a set while talking about the set explicitly. The appearance (or coming to attention) of plural quantification (and reference) removed that problem and introduced a device (actually either of at least two devices) which dealt with plurals in a way that covered both ordinary sumti (lV, lVi, etc.) and did all the things that sets were explicitly used to do. In short, though lV'i remains in the language, it has virtually no usefulness outside of mathematics (and so does not need such a useful set of words). I think everyone wants to get rid of these altogether, but it will take some doing to actually make the change. Of the various uses of lVi, 1 is covered in plural logic by the notion of non-distributive (collective) predication. As such it is not appropriately expressed by a gadri, since it does not involve something different from a distributive predication but only a different way of predicating on the same thing(s). It ought then to be somehow expressed in the predicate not the arguments but there is presently no way to do this in Lojban and no active suggestions how to do it. For the nonce then the difference is still covered by the lV-lVi contrast, even though this leaves some cases uncovered. 2, the corporate form, which is about a different sort of thing and so might be covered by a gadri, is also still covered by lVi, often without noticing the difference involved. Should a predicate way of dealing with the collective/distributive distinction be devised, lVi might naturally be used for these cases, although they are perhaps not common enough to deserve such a central set of words. I thin that some people still use lVi for the goo reading, 3, although it seems to be adequately covered by collective predication over pieces of brodas and that locution seems to be about the right length for the frquency of this sort notion. (Something like this may also work forthe corporate model, 2, using the appropriate one of a number of predicates for organizations of this sort -- if the right ones exist). Moving lV, as far as I can tell {le} and {la} are unchanged, except that the distributivity need not be assumed; rather whether distribution or collection is meant is mainly left to context, with the lVi forms brought in where collection is crucial and not obvious. Presumably solving the predication form of this would allow these gadri to be neutral -- just referring to the brodas involved without limiting how they are inolved. Implicit quantifiers have been done away with, except that the very meaning of these two gadri require that there be something they refer to (i.e., it is as if the implicit internal quantifier were {su'o}) and both distribution and collection are about all the members in these cases, so something like explicit external {ro} is involved. These readings off what is involved in specifying seem to be the point which the old implicit quantifiers were meant to cover). The case of {lo} is somewhat more complex. The basics are clear enough: it is unmarked for specificity and for distributivity. And the explicit external quantifiers are clear, that is how many brodas we are attributiing the predicate to (and, probably, distributively since quantifiers tend to individualize rather than mass). After that comes the separation. On one view, the unmarked form is just the unspecific form of {le}, brodas that get caught up in this case by context and intent, but not specified. An explicit internal quantifier says how many there are as such in this case, and an external quantifier says how many of them get the current prdicate. And, by the way, {lo broda} in primary usage entails that there are broda (not in the scope of negations, world altering modals, absttractions or opque contexts). I am less clear what the other version says about simple {lo broda} except that on occasion at least, it is said to yield true claims from primary occurrences even when there are no brodas and to authorize external generalization from opaque contexts. To do these things, it can no longer refer to brodas as such but moves to something at a different level (I've tried a number of suggestions, none of which worked apparently). In addition, internal quantifiers become part of the defining predicate: {lo ci broda} is not three brodas bu some (or maybe no?) broda triads. {mu lo ci broda} then is five broda triads -- between seven and fifteen brodas. Now, against that background, I wonder if Maxim can provide some clarification of his suggestions. 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.