From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 15:05:33 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8oe-0000U1-M2 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:05:32 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f217.google.com ([209.85.219.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ml8oa-0000TA-TY for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:05:32 -0700 Received: by ewy17 with SMTP id 17so455847ewy.15 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ZdWw2X5QFk3aQ4C4T5jc3BOjjgWjlibUMFUIno3fAx8=; b=PLGop+lNvVPjDMoTR65axISJ0U7sMGjIjRX7+d2HOHlnQ1LTVdTacOgXrByt0G08ek P9LVrj27kZv+8vLcFsH0FwiI2a7uOd0AcBacD7iBUGrotR3s9jcUeD9VhQXsPTZAjeIL 2Q9hdom9jzGvz5c0Hx/i1aZd8FVgy7rbpP7v0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=U8q+5VVCFAFpnlngygMNmUhcBtAavzJFUVNiLaSXRX88P6y/hP7KeeD2tzjMKZ1CR0 i4RQmuVqMVaMxvq5NRGgMWGOMytkZuq5lgtizypxHO/2KIQeuCGM4BLtK3QfNbBQXC86 w3XQWm903bzPhLN6Zr0drRtMfJ4/Ujk4bEfLo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.211.129.20 with SMTP id g20mr18324471ebn.12.1252447522556; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ada8ecd0909051425t78a046f3kddef2869e5c8e7a2@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909080221h297baa5eqb5eba2ad6ac1d5d5@mail.gmail.com> <200909080827.14128.phma@phma.optus.nu> <9ada8ecd0909081238j2649ee89g28c6b34c72d82b18@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909081321x34f3faa1u40106c6ed49b5972@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909081431m6758386dgf241e2b27e99b5d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:05:22 +0300 Message-ID: <9ada8ecd0909081505o782b4a55od3462e99d486214b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00504502ce40ae9e3d04731829dc X-Spam_score: 0.6 X-Spam_score_int: 6 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: As I said below, at the moment it looks to me as if *loi broda* is the same as *lo broda* and *le broda* is the same as *lei broda* (when no inner or outer quantifiers are present). Wouldn't it more logical to restrict the meaning of *lo* and *le* to individuals (rather than include masses), whereas e.g. *loi broda* would retain the meaning of the current proposal's *lo broda* ? The thing is, an individual is a degenerate kind of mass (a mass consisting of 1 object) while a mass is not any kind of individual. [...] Content analysis details: (0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------X-archive-position: 16120 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 --00504502ce40ae9e3d04731829dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 As I said below, at the moment it looks to me as if *loi broda* is the same as *lo broda* and *le broda* is the same as *lei broda* (when no inner or outer quantifiers are present). Wouldn't it more logical to restrict the meaning of *lo* and *le* to individuals (rather than include masses), whereas e.g. *loi broda* would retain the meaning of the current proposal's *lo broda* ? The thing is, an individual is a degenerate kind of mass (a mass consisting of 1 object) while a mass is not any kind of individual. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich wrote: > LOL, so *you* are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended! > > OK, let me take another shot at understanding the *gadri* proposal. > > *lo broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* , masses of *broda* (or > even sets of *broda* ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of > entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic > *broda* . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction > is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least > one *broda*" but not "exactly one *broda*" or "at most one *broda*". At > least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning > is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one > meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first. > For example, *lo nanmu bevri le pipno* can mean anything from "a man > carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all > men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "*the* man carries the > piano(s)". > > *lo **n** broda* can mean either "*n* *broda *, divided into masses in the > way (whatever)" (*n* *broda* regarded individually is a special case where > each mass consists of 1 *broda*) or "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / > masses of *broda* out of the *n* *broda*". > > *m* *lo broda *means "*m* individual *broda*". This is way more specific > than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the *m* *broda* out of the > specific *broda*"? > > *m* *lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I > don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It > doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n > broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should > we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the > meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two > persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? > Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why > wouldn't we use le ?* > > *loi broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this > and *lo broda* > > *loi **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) > masses of *broda* of size *n* (each). > > *m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of > broda out of the specific masses of broda"?* > > *m* *loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses > of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?* > > *lo'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets > of *broda* > > *lo'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or > specific) sets of *broda* of size *n* (each). > > *m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out > of the specific sets of broda"?* > > *m* *lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets > of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?* > > *le broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* or masses of *broda* but > these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial) > > *le **n** broda* means "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / masses of * > broda* out of the specific *n* *broda*". > > *m* *le broda *means "*m* individual *broda* out of the specific *broda*". > > *m* *le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".* > > *lei broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this > and *le broda* > > *lei **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of > *broda* of size *n* (each). > > *m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda > ".* > > *m* *lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific > masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many > specific masses of broda are there?* > > *le'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *broda* > > *le'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of * > broda* of size *n* (each). > > *m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".* > > *m* *le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific > sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets > of broda are there?* > > Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a > (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of *broda*, but instead of > substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we > substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example *su'o re pixa loi > nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means "at least two groups of men exist such that > 60% of each group carry the piano(s)". I guess that when a group of men > carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the > piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is > something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey > the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense > that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if > only giving instructions), we have to say *pa piro loi nanmu bevri le > pipno* . On the other hand, if we say *pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno* rather > than *pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno* , it is possible that the > context implies that all of the men in the group *are* involved in > carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right? > > --00504502ce40ae9e3d04731829dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As I said below, at the moment it looks to me as if loi= broda=A0is the same as lo broda=A0and le broda=A0is the = same as lei broda=A0(when no inner or outer quantifiers are present)= . Wouldn't it more logical to restrict the meaning of lo=A0and <= i>le=A0to individuals (rather than include masses), whereas e.g. loi= broda=A0would retain the meaning of the current proposal's lo b= roda=A0? The thing is, an individual is a degenerate kind of mass (a ma= ss consisting of 1 object) while a mass is not any kind of individual.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabi= novich <top.sq= uark@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL, so=A0you=A0are xorxe. S= orry: no offense=A0intended!

OK, let me take = another shot at understanding the gadri=A0proposal.

lo broda=A0can mean any quantifier applied= to broda=A0, masses of broda=A0(or even sets of broda= =A0?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different na= ture). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda=A0. The p= recise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the qua= ntifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at leas= t one broda" but not "exactly one broda" or &q= uot;at most one broda". At least this seems a reasonable constr= aint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to = let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is the= exact opposite of the first.
For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno=A0can mean anything from "= a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the p= iano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean &= quot;the=A0man carries the piano(s)".

lo n=A0broda=A0can mean eith= er "n=A0broda , divided into masses in the way (whatever= )" (n=A0broda=A0regarded individually is a special case = where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) = of broda=A0/ masses of broda=A0out of the n=A0broda= ".

m=A0lo broda means "m= =A0individual broda". This is way more specific than the previo= us constructs. Can it also mean "the m=A0broda=A0out of = the specific broda"?

m=A0lo n=A0broda=A0means "m=A0individual broda=A0out of = the n=A0broda". Hmm, = I don't like this. What is the difference between this and=A0m= =A0le=A0n=A0broda=A0? It doesn't appear to make much sense to us= e a non-specific collection of n= =A0broda=A0. "a person out of some three person" is strang= e, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are th= ey related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri = le pipno=A0. Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevan= ce of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here,= in which case, why wouldn't we use le=A0?=

loi broda=A0means... Hmm, I don't see = what's the difference between this and lo broda

loi=A0n=A0broda=A0can mean a= ny quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of broda=A0of = size n=A0(each).

m=A0= loi broda=A0means "m=A0masses of broda".=A0Can it also mea= n "m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0out of the specific masses of= =A0broda"?

m=A0loi=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"= ;m=A0ma= sses of=A0broda=A0of size n".=A0Can it also mean "<= b>m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific masses of=A0broda"?

lo'i broda=A0can mean a= ny quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda<= /font>

lo'i=A0n=A0broda=A0can mea= n any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of=A0broda=A0= of size=A0n=A0(each).

m=A0lo'i broda=A0means "m=A0sets of=A0broda".=A0Can it also = mean "m=A0sets of=A0broda=A0out of the specific sets of= =A0broda"?

m=A0lo'i=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0&q= uot;m= =A0sets of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n".=A0Can it also mean &q= uot;m=A0sets of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific sets of=A0broda"?

le broda=A0can mean any quantifier applied t= o=A0broda=A0or masses of=A0broda=A0but these have to be speci= fic (and it's not veridicial)

le=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"(whatever quantifier) of=A0broda=A0/ masses of=A0<= i>broda=A0out of the specific=A0n=A0broda".

m=A0le broda=A0means "m= =A0individual=A0broda=A0out of the specific=A0broda".

m=A0le=A0n=A0broda=A0means "m=A0individual=A0broda=A0out o= f the specific=A0n=A0broda= ".

lei broda=A0means... Hmm, I don't see wh= at's the difference between this and=A0le broda

lei=A0n=A0broda=A0can mean any= quantifier applied to (specific) masses of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n= =A0(each).

m=A0lei broda=A0means "m=A0masses of=A0broda=A0out of the specific m= asses of broda".

m=A0lei=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0"<= span style=3D"font-weight:bold">m=A0mass= es of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific masses of <= i>broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specif= ic masses of broda=A0are there?<= /span>

le'i broda=A0can mean a= ny quantifier applied to (specific) sets of=A0broda

le'i=A0n=A0broda=A0can mea= n any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of=A0broda=A0of size=A0<= b>n=A0(each).

m=A0le'i broda=A0means "m=A0sets of=A0broda=A0out of the specific= sets of broda".

m=A0le'i=A0n=A0broda=A0means=A0&q= uot;m= =A0sets of=A0broda=A0of size=A0n=A0out of the specific sets o= f broda".=A0Does it mean there is no way to say how many specif= ic sets of=A0broda=A0are there?<= /span>

Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess= they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of brod= a, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable into the= =A0predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example=A0<= i>su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno=A0means "at least t= wo groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)"= . I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might be ent= irely uninvolved in carrying the piano. This means that the factor unifying= these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano together.= So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 men ca= rries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has someth= ing to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have to s= ay pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno=A0. On the other hand, if we say= pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno=A0rather than pa pisu'o loi nanm= u bevri le pipno=A0, it is possible that the context implies that all o= f the men in the group are=A0involved in carrying the piano after al= l. Did I get this right?


--00504502ce40ae9e3d04731829dc-- 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.