From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 26 07:36:11 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 11596 invoked from network); 26 May 2006 14:35:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2006 14:35:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2006 14:35:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FjdPT-000397-2l for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:35:27 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FjdNh-00037V-El; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:33:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 26 May 2006 07:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FjdNE-00036W-4y for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:33:08 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FjdNB-00036O-Av for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:33:08 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id s2so156393uge for ; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.47.9 with SMTP id u9mr110339huu; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.21.5 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2006 07:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605260732u5039a616jf8c220a7a485a12a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:32:31 -0300 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605230610r25b3f886tbaa964838a659d74@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605231539l2bdbcf8bqe44d242fa371eed7@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605240608t20353b28gd96dea490efc8a71@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605250957g29c9e972l4543c11102fc891f@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11676 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:12:4:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=S0EFsaALPMksW5_5c07g4qPP9W5URDuG3mIPyk-WXtIHdCTItQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26095 On 5/25/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > Whenever you have a "mass", it's always a "thing made up of". That's indeed what using the word "mass" (or "group", or "bunch", or "collection", or "set", or whichever one chooses) does suggest. That's why I don't say that {loi so'i broda} refers to a mass. I only say that it refers to many brodas. To them directly, not to an additional thing on top which contains them. There are some advantages to doing this, i.e. not bringing in unnecessary entities. (Notice that I am not saying that you can never talk about masses/groups/sets/etc., or that it is never useful to do so. You certainly can, as in for example {lo gunma be lo prenu}, "a group of people". What I don't do is use {loi} to intoduce a new entity.) > For > example, three men that carry a piano collectively are actually > (together) a "carrier": > > X is made up (of 'parts') "three men". X carries the piano. I would say that as: (1) lo gunma be lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno A group of three men carry the piano. Which may be used to describe the same situation as: (2) loi ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno Three men carry the piano. The difference I see between (1) and (2) is that in (1) there is a reference to a new entity, a group, that has three members, whereas in (2) there is no reference to any such entity, there is only reference to three men, which carry the piano together. > How do you translate a blank outer? I don't think that a sumti with no outer quantifier has a hidden quantifier that is actually there but is just blank, so I don't need to translate what's not there. This is how I think of quantifiers: Any sumti without outer quantifiers has one or more referents. When you add an outer quantifier, it does not change the referents of the sumti in any way. The outer quantifier is meaningless until you use it in a sentence. It indicates how many of the referents of the sumti fit the predicate. So {le vo prenu}, {ro le vo prenu}, {re le vo prenu} and {no le vo prenu} all have the same referents: the four people. The outer quantifier (when you use one) will say different things about those referents, when you use it in a sentence. When you don't use an outer quantifier you won't be saying any of the things that you could say by using one. > Do you simply "not commit > to any interpretation"? If one meant {no} as the outer, would it be > acceptable to use the blank? No, one would have to use {no}. Similarly if one meant {ro}, or {su'o}, or {re}, etc. one would have to use them. > If {ro} /can't/ be the outer, then that's > very much like saying that {su'o} is the default for a blank outer, I > think. You can't assume that inserting a {su'o} where no outer quatifier has been used will leave the meaning unchanged, no. In some cases you will get a very similar meaning, in other cases a very different one. > > There are in fact an excess of structures available. If Lojban had had > > a single gadri things would have been so much easier. > > Then why don't you have a specific structure for "ambiguously" > ("either together or individually, but not specifically either"), in > the same way that there's a specific structure for "together" ({loi}) > and a specific structure for "individually" ({lo}). {lo} does not mean "individually". {lo} gives no indication as to the distributivity or non-distributivity of the predicate in which the sumti is used. > > {ro lo mapku} = each hat > > {lo ro mapku} = all hats > > All of what hats? All things that count as hats. > You're clearly not talking about *all* hats. You're > talking about all of a relevant group of hats. If you bring in a relevant group, that implies there is another group, an irrelevant one, that is excluded. You can do that in the metalanguage, when explaining how something was meant, but it can't be part of what you are saying, because {lo ro mapku} leaves no thing that counts as a hat out. > "All of the bears" (in > the zoo), "all of the hats" (in the store). There's a group there. When you make the restriction explicit, yes. > > The first one has to be distributive. The second one may or may not be, > > depending on the context. > > What is {ro lo ro mapku}? "Each hat out of all the hats"? Yes, "each of all hats". > How about > {re lo ro mapku}? "Each of two hats out of all the hats"? "Exactly two of all hats". > So omitting > the outer means that it is ambiguous? Only in the sense that remaining silent is ambiguous between all the things I could have said but didn't. But that's not what "ambiguity" normally means. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.