From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Feb 02 17:22:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 83728 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2008 01:22:28 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.97) by m35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2008 01:22:28 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.7) by mta18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2008 01:22:28 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 10955 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2008 01:22:24 -0000 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Feb 2008 01:22:24 -0000 X-Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JLTYq-00011P-GF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:22:22 -0800 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JLTYA-0000xn-Qh; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:21:46 -0800 X-Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:20:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JLTWg-0000xg-Fy for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:20:06 -0800 X-Received: from squid17.laughingsquid.net ([72.32.93.144]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JLTWZ-0000w1-2x for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:20:06 -0800 X-Received: (qmail 19553 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2008 17:19:48 -0800 X-Received: from c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net (c-75-68-233-37.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [75.68.233.37]) by webmail.ixkey.info (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:19:48 -0800 Message-ID: <20080202171948.7lyx8d18so84ooos@webmail.ixkey.info> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:19:48 -0800 References: <737b61f30802011636w6c8b6bc4hb34ab8bb417f1cf2@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560802021302h49211bddi9f801426904e6be2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560802021302h49211bddi9f801426904e6be2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4) X-Spam-Score: 1.8 X-Spam-Score-Int: 18 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 14156 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mungojelly@ixkey.info X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.7 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: mungojelly@ixkey.info From: lojban-out@lojban.org Reply-To: mungojelly@ixkey.info Subject: [lojban] Re: lo questions X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=vfuNxnNUc3uJlhytQgqMeo6jdGHtlWo3oGKcaIifpiNTwXj8wA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28640 Quoting Jorge Llambías : > {ci [lo] gerku} is not very meaningful by itself. An outer quantifier is an > operator, and it needs a full bridi to operate on. > > {ci [lo] gerku cu broda} means that among the referents of {lo gerku}, > i.e. among dogs, there are three and no more than three that satisfy > the predicate {... broda}. > > Inner quantifiers are not operators. {lo ci gerku} is all by itself a > complete meaningful expression. It's a sumti, with one or more > referents. When we use it in a sentence we will be saying something > about those referents. It seems like in this case it might help to think about the phrase: "re lo ci gerku" Two of the three dogs. There are two different places, here both of them filled, either or both of which can be elided. In the absence of one, we're free to imagine what might fill it, as constrained by the other (in addition to all the rest of the context). "re lo gerku" we can imagine to be two out of a concrete number of dogs involved in the situation, like three, or it might be two out of all dogs ever to have existed, etc. "lo ci gerku" says that the three dogs, three dogs who go together & who are meaningful to this situation, were involved. Maybe not every single one of them was involved-- we can imagine it could be only one or two of the three of them, it doesn't say. (It's hard to imagine that it could be five dogs, because the concreteness of the "lo" means that the "ci" is true in an ordinary sense.) I think by putting together the implications of each of those emptinesses in relation to each other, we can see something about what each one means on its own. It seems to me that they relate to two different levels of discourse. The inner qualifier identifies the nature of the set considered; it relates the sumti to its outer context in the whole conversation. The outer qualifier identifies how many out of the identified set were in the relation described; it relates the understood sumti to the bridi being constructed. I feel like it might clarify even more if we added some context to the situation. Suppose we're talking about three dogs, Fluffy, Rex and Mars. Now that I've established a bit of context, it makes more sense if I say: "pa lo gerku cu bajra" -- One of the dogs runs, but pa lo xo gerku? One of how many? Well I just told you, I'm talking to you about Fluffy, Rex, and Mars. The implication [ca'e] is that "pa lo gerku" means "pa lo ci gerku". It seems different to me to now say "lo pa gerku cu bajra". The one dog runs. All we've been talking about so far is three dogs-- we said about them that one of them runs. We haven't discussed yet a "one dog." It feels to me like it would make sense to ask now: "lo pa gerku bi'upei" -- is this an unrelated (new-information) dog that you're mentioning? In English numbers just sort of glob onto the front of nouns, indifferent to whether they're making three wheels or the three kings or the number three bus. Lojbanic numbers form particular relationships with their sentences, several particular relationships none of which English can express at all. The outer quantification takes an established sumti, which points to some referent in some real or imaginary world, and slices it up. Many referents are plural, meaning that they refer to more than one thing, each of which fits the same description while also having its own distinct characteristics, just like my imaginary Fluffy, Rex and Mars. The outer quantification is capable of working on these kinds of referents, taking just parts of them to include in a bridi relationship. Together they are "lo ci gerku", and every time that any one of them does something, "pa lo ci gerku" is doing it, and every time that two of them both do something, "re lo ci gerku" are doing it, and every time the three of them are all doing something together, "ci lo ci gerku" are doing it, or "ro lo gerku", which is the same thing in this context, [ca'e] (== I hereby define! I make it true just by saying so!). The inner quantification has that sense of "ca'e" in it. You're still slicing and dicing the world, as language is wont to do, but you are not slicing your own referent. You are talking about a number of things, plurally, considering them as one coherent part of the world which relates to other parts. It seems to me that every time you take a slice with the outer quantifier, you are in fact creating another coherent referent, which might be adding to the confusion! Consider for instance this sequence of statements, in this context: "re lo gerku cu xamgu .i lo re gerku cu xekri" Two of the dogs are good. The two dogs are black. The first bridi slices out two of the aforementioned dogs, and says that they're good. The second sentence refers to some contextually meaningful set of "two dogs," clearly in this case the two dogs who were just sliced out, and says that they are black. (Important information to watch out for, if you ever meet "lo ci gerku" on the side of the road.) That's my understanding so far. Does it match with how y'all see the new "lo" working? It seems to me like it's not really that clear yet, but it's a lot clearer and more useful than where we were before. mu'o mi'e la mungodjelis. no'u la bret. 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.