From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Sep 05 14:25:30 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mk2lG-0003xe-0S for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:25:30 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f222.google.com ([209.85.219.222]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mk2l9-0003wo-6N for lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:25:29 -0700 Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so1697407ewy.28 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=g8Bdm5iquwAKFhV4c1X3Sm+PEhdEgQFj9YqQKTK4nO4=; b=kvp0HdV81HVoi65s1aiIgDYQPtbpmjYfm7F6wSyC414+AyB7dfatS853Bw2yCSV5/m 6fe2DvcoVyhqahafEV2HfwQfQWDNJliwCoZBWYtcMOBjoT3J3vKlmCYd+9fobNXd4lzM W650fNL4l29KVI5SuBsfhJ3cHFCP+NYKjT9OU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=SOQmOYRwuGQaMCqSokZTxIWV7HnrAxDPgSEAE5M88BrCMGc+q5vnO6b/OZiuR0N5vM 9iwos3dV3ULlfaa5Zvz7pC556E1NutWustB1IZIu+g9B1FKGTy2JSth8uFOr+fy6q5L2 pno7U2THuCFIbRLF9PYoM9qbEVwLzkI/qPypU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.155.2 with SMTP id c2mr2082913ebe.23.1252185916600; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 00:25:16 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-beginners , lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09ffb5285c076100472db40f3 X-archive-position: 16082 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: top.squark@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --00c09ffb5285c076100472db40f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello everyone. I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that - Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a *constant*, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it *refers* to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier *mu*, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the referents of the unquantified term. I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the *jufra* *lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu* * * Under xorlo, *lo mu nanmu* refers to some 5 men/boys and *lo ci ninmu* refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of *lo* was *su'o *thus the above would implied that *at least one* of the men talks to *at least one* of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo *le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu* * * meant that *all* of the men talk to *all* of the women, since the default outer quantifier of *le* was *ro*. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one". In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant". Secondly, what is meant by *lo* becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention? Many thx for any help! Best regards, Squark --00c09ffb5285c076100472db40f3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everyone.

I have recently got=A0a= cquainted=A0with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:
=

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now = have that=A0
  • Any term without an ex= plicit outer quantifier is a=A0constant, i.e. not a quanti= fied term. This means that it=A0refers=A0to one or more in= dividuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with r= espect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change t= he meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the s= ame referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. = In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified vari= able, bound by the quantifier=A0mu, and it takes its values from t= he set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it ac= ts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope= .) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things = over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, th= e quantifier runs over the referents of the unquantified term.
I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants.= For instance, consider the jufra

lo mu = nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu

Under xorlo,= lo mu nanmu=A0refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu=A0re= fers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before x= orlo, the default outer quantifier of lo=A0was su'o=A0thu= s the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to a= t least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean = that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women.=A0Similarly, before= xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu
meant that all=A0of the men talk to all=A0of= the women, since the default outer quantifier of le=A0was ro= . What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at = least one"? Or is it context=A0defendant, and the phrases could mean a= nything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is = safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3= women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logical= ly=A0necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo=A0becoming "generi= c"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

=
Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
=A0Squark

    --00c09ffb5285c076100472db40f3-- 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.