From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 24 18:35:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 23946 invoked from network); 25 May 2006 01:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 May 2006 01:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2006 01:35:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fj4lQ-0007wp-27 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:35:48 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fj4iz-0007v5-LT; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:33:20 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 24 May 2006 18:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fj4iW-0007ue-H6 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:48 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fj4iS-0007uU-64 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:48 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1870828ugd for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.216.6 with SMTP id o6mr99608ugg; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.255.6 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 18:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:32:42 -0600 In-Reply-To: <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221736p1d02db31sb154ed5cc4d0e793@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605221856w7c5703b4p9ec1d1b296e67093@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605230610r25b3f886tbaa964838a659d74@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11673 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:12:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=t9ZtaBMbMfYoxzdUkqy17aNknuTsLZsIXEPaGjQdBmyxwA34gQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26092 On 5/24/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > Overall I don't think that it's a good idea to have {lo} not marked. > > It's a very good thing to be able to be precise when you need/want to. > It is also a very good thing not to be forced to be precise when you > don't need/want to. You can be ambiguous between cat and elephant by saying "animal". You can be ambiguous between 1 and 20 by saying "some". You can be ambiguous between tree and happiness by saying something like "concept". But to be ambiguous between "each one of these did" and "the thing (with parts: each one of these) did" ... there is no superclass that I'm aware of. Ambiguity should not be allowed unless there's an actual superclass that *covers both meanings*. At the far end of the scale at which this sort of ambiguity sits are words with multiple definitions - both meanings aren't covered by it, it's just that people use the word because they were too lazy to think of and use the proper one. So no, I'd rather have the speaker say an extra syllable. But that's just me. If you want to introduce something that expresses this sort of ambiguity, you can go right ahead (and I think you have), but you can't do it at the cost of structures that already exist and serve a good purpose. > > > You should be able to say the following: > > > > {??? nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} > > e1: individually, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. > > e2: individually, all of the group of two men carried the piano > > e3: together, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano. > > e4: together, all of the group of two men carried the piano > > > > 1-4 I would say are: > > > > 1: {re lo vo nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} > > 2: {ro lo vo ...} > > 3: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o re lo vo ...} > > 4: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o ro lo vo ...} > > Ah, you meant inner {vo}, I was a bit confused by your versions in English, > where you wrote "two" instead of "four". Agreed for 1 and 2, and also Yes, there was a similarity between re and ro that I didn't like. I see that it came out all sorts of messed up when I replaced them. Corrected (hopefully): {??? nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} e1: individually, two (and only two) of the group of four** men carried the piano. e2: individually, all of the group of four** men carried the piano e3: together, two (and only two) of the group of four** men carried the piano. e4: together, all of the group of four** men carried the piano 1-4 I would say are: 1: {re lo vo nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno} 2: {ro lo vo ...} 3: {re** loi vo ...} / {lu'o re lo vo ...} 4: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o ro lo vo ...} > for the {lu'o} version of 3 and 4, although {loi} instead of {lu'o} would be > grammatical there too, so they would probably be preferred: > {loi re lo vo nanmu...} and {loi ro lo vo nanmu}. > > > Forget distributivity/non distributivity. Before we even consider > > them, we have to agree on this: the inner says "this is the quantity > > of the group that I am referring to", > > Corrrect. > > > and the outer says "this is the > > number of that group that I am going to say something about". > > Not quite. You are going to say something about all the things you are > referring to, why else would you want to refer to them? To see this more Yes, I understand this very well - I wanted to emphasize that the actual relationship specifically applies to the outer: I say that only 4 of these 8 are sitting. The actual "sitting" relationship doesn't directly apply to the 8. My use of "saying something about" was not as exacting as your use. > clearly, consider this example: there is a row of four chairs, with a person > sitting on each of the chairs and another person standing behind it. > We can say: > > (1) vo le bi prenu cu zutse > Exactly four of the eight people are sitting. > > (2) naku mu le bi prenu cu zutse > It is not the case that exactly five of the eight people are sitting. > > (3) ro le vo sanli cu trixe pa le vo zutse > Each of the four standers is behind exactly one of the sitters. > > Now, perhaps in (1) you can imagine that you are selecting a group > of four to say something about them, but which group of five are you > selecting in (2), and which one of the sitters are you selecting in (3)? That's right, the outer is not specific. > In (1) you are saying something about the eight people: that exactly > four of them are sitting. Indeed, what I was getting at was that the relationship (sitting) applies directly to the four. Indirectly, it means that the non-four are not sitters. My point was that you surely aren't saying that the eight are sitting. > In (2) you are saying something about the eight > people: that it is not the case that exactly five of them are sitting. In > (3) you are saying something about the four standers and the four > sitters: that each of the first ones is behind exactly one of the second > ones. > > > And finally, what {lu'a} and {lu'o} mean to you, if they mean anything. > > lu'o = lo gunma be > lu'a = lo cmima be > You didn't illustrate any of the others that I asked for. The reason I asked was to show you that in throwing in an "ambiguous" version, you run out of room, and end up being inconsistent: sometimes the use of a lo means "individually", sometimes it's ambiguous. You agreed that before you get into this distrib/nondistrib/together/individually business, you need to be able to say all the various {x LE y} things clearly. 1 "some/all of the bears" 2 "some/all of the four bears" 3 "four of the bears" 4 "some/all of bears" ("some/all of [all of a set-of-bears]") 5 "all of the bears" 6 "four of bears" ("four of [all of a set-of-bears]") 7 "all of the four bears" So there are 7 things to say. You want to say them in 3 different ways: a: "individually, ..." b: "together, ..." c: "either individually or together, ..." 3 * 7 = 21. But you have the 7 variants, but only {loi} and {lo}. 2 * 7 = 14. Clearly, you need to sacrifice being able to say a few things. 7/21 (1 of 3 ways) are covered by loi - when you have loi, you mean 'b', so we have to worry only about saying 'a' and 'c' using the remaining 7 {lo}-based methods: 1 {lo cribe} 2 {lo vo cribe} 3 {vo lo cribe} 4 {lo ro cribe} - ambiguously "all of the bears" 5 {ro lo cribe} - individually "all of the bears" 6 {vo lo ro cribe} 7 {ro lo vo cribe} But where did your... 4:"individually, an unspecified quantity of all of a relevant group of X" e.g. "some of all the hats were beautiful" 5:"ambiguously, all of an unspecified quantity of X" ...disappear to? (Not to imply that I think that those are the proper ways to say those things, only that they're they ways that you say them.) And how do you say 2 and 3 both individually, and ambiguously? Point being, you don't have enough Lojbanic structures available to be able to add "ambiguously", without scattering what is a very good and consistent method. And that's what has happened. Putting aside togetherness/individuality "all the hats were beautiful" can very well translate to {ro lo mapku cu melbi} based on the assertions that you made regarding inner and outer quantifiers in all of the latter half of your last response. Here's a rather interesting statement: You don't have any real meaning for inner {ro}. "All of some group" is handled by {ro lo mapku}. But because you could, you gave inner {ro} (with a blank outer, at least) the meaning: {lo ro mapku} (some?, all?) out of all of the relevant group of hats "all the hats" (e.g. "...in the store") which, based on the rules that you clearly laid out for inner and outer quantifiers, is effectively the same as: {ro lo mapku} all of the relevant group of hats Same meanning, strange phrasing ("X out of [all out of Y]"). So now you have two ways of saying the same thing, except one of them is very strange, and implies really strange interpretations for its counterparts: {ci lo ro mapku} "three of all the hats" (e.g. "...in the store") *which makes no sense*: why aren't you just saying {ci lo mapku} "three of the hats" {e.g. in the store} instead? But why worry about that? ...Anyway, you have two ways to say the same thing. Clearly, this is an invitation to make one of those mean "individually" and the other "ambiguously". And that's how you've handled it. ... I think that I described the rationale behind your interpretation of inner {ro}, and I think that this rationale simply isn't sensible, nor consistent. Perhaps there's an alternate explanation that is much more sensible? I don't think that there is. 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.