From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jun 10 07:09:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 55048 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2006 14:09:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2006 14:09:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2006 14:09:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fp48b-00085f-SF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:08:30 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fp47P-000851-UV; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:07:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fp46y-00084n-8L for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:06:48 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.232]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fp46u-00084g-S0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:06:48 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i5so1033512wra for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.10.9 with SMTP id 9mr1510934qbj; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.237.19 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560606100706j1b7f03bpb0a62b6ce99b613d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:06:40 -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: <925d17560606080643r55da8773gd4fad0bdac0c505a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606080832j516fc7c9g7783a394f3d1074a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606090549k2275f466x7802ac6c9b6abfd3@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560606090813o32d608e3pa4fef3f3190c0c4c@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11778 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: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0 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=b88MwKf4WPm16XdNKkMV5Bl7OPyo_gesDaRUdBPvC3jt9Vl0WQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26199 On 6/10/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > > lu'o ro lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju > > If your grammar says that an outer {ro} on a {lo} marks it for > distributivity, why is (1) exempt from this rule? Because the presence of {lu'o} means {ro} is no longer the outermost marker. The distributive/non-distributive marker marks a slot, and no matter how many {lo}s and {loi}s and {lu'o}s and quantifiers are contained inside the sumti expression, the one that determines whether the slot is distributive or not is the outermost. An outermost quantifier is distributive, an outermost mass-marker is non-distributive. It's that simple. In addition to quantifiers, logical connectives are also distributive and work just like quantifiers, and {joi} works like {loi} and {lu'o}. The neutral connective, not marked for distributivity and which corresponds to {lo} is {jo'u}. So if we have two people, Alice and Betty: la .alis .e la betis = ro le re prenu la .alis .a la betis = su'o le re prenu la .alis .onai la betis = pa le re prenu la .alis na.enai la betis = no le re prenu la .alis na.anai la betis = su'epa le re prenu la .alis .o la betis = ro ja no le re prenu (The remaining logical connectives are not symmetric, and therefore don't have a corresponding quantifier.) la .alis joi la betis = lei re prenu la .alis jo'u la betis = le re prenu > > {lo rokci joi la alis cu sruri le dinju}. > > > > But apparently under your current interpretation, from that it follows that > > {loi rokci cu sruri le dinju} and also that {lu'o la alis cu sruri le dinju} > > (= {lai alis cu sruri le dinju}?). But neither of those follow at all, the > > way I understand it. > > As I've said, this isn't English, you don't need the same pragmatics > and verbatim translations. I'm not talking about pragmatics here, I'm talking about what follows logically from an expression. For all cases of ko'a and ko'e and broda, independently of their meanings, under your interpretation you have that from: (1) ko'a joi ko'e broda you can deduce: (2) lu'o ko'a broda Just from knowing that ko'a and ko'e do X together, you can deduce that ko'a is part of a group that does X. There's no pragmatics involved there. But for me (and also the way Lojban has always been, as far as I can tell) {lu'o ko'a} is not "some group that has the referents of {ko'a} as components, possibly among other components", it means, in singularist terms, "a group that consists of the referents of {ko'a}, no more and no less" or in pluralist terms it means that the referents of {ko'a} do something together. > Now, I could say {lu'o la alis cu sruri lo dinju}, but usually I > wouldn't. I'd say {lo rokci joi la alis cu sruri lo dinju}. However, > the former would still be true - Alice is a part of the > surrounder/surroundment of the building. Under your reinterpretation of {lu'o}, that's correct. Under the usual interpretation, that's not correct. This is independent of whether you take the singularist or the pluralist road. The singularist and pluralist roads take you both to the same final place, but this new spin that you want to put on {lu'o} changes it to something else. > I'd still like to have that explanation of distributivity that I've > been asking for. > > 1) {lu'o la tadni cu sruri lo dinju} > 2) {loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju} > 3) {la tadni cu sruri lo dinju} > 4) {la tadni cu dasni lo mapku} > > What is Alice's relationship to each relationship? (I assume you mean {le} or {lo} rather than {la}.) In all cases, Alice is one of the referents of the sumti that appears in x1. There's no more to it than that. The answer to your question "If Alice and Betty do something together, what am I saying that Alice is doing by herself?" is "I'm not saying anything about Alice more than that she is one of the two people doing something together." 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.