From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Sep 08 18:56:08 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlCPf-0000bD-Hi for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:56:06 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.118]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlCPP-0000a9-7D for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:55:57 -0700 Received: (qmail 79461 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Sep 2009 01:55:28 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252461328; bh=tHMJMkWygDtWJNDpWYvk7YrJAL0nH4rebXbSc4tGKvQ=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=5JrmhUEIhClFIHgL35wFfIh89RuAmO3x8+1e98k5S1HdZndtsnB9XuY+M64Cbt0aWqsQkj+vcprCdONrHwMbHszd4qWB9c4JNCSnuDlMMebEEsCt+BF9CPcl8e8eYenumWPbi0HKDq3691wCruTuApHCtF3US2XtvzOWQPzluPo= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cV5N4LhuFI92tQueVn2K28K6e/D7bvDEFvTkuSMIFbGlGo7LylA6yaE2bWU9VPFkgmKYNrR6xzLZ9shBeg1NY58Z+VRczUgYniTUmSQMoamJ3XlkbKA6rj6xHb6ajRZCHYLkdqk+Te9b35MExpLKEJSfDmAPoYKXh19DtcLmYoc=; Message-ID: <556211.63099.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: U3xTN6gVM1ku3ZhCXGiiqc1Uzw706XzZoevUjM2_Ox8YFt5_mnUh3_Ilgnckrfym0t6H0Du8j0MPLFiBWsIP6sB3_AWRA9NFGx7NyAGDY0YVMFfYzNC8gSpoGwoxmtogQonWIqGdn0EsJydpnvqAc3NjN5eTWwig30QVsz_yAzRzorW.d3lDd2RKk1Xqwit9rVJbY99cYkU0qC2gkQzhDjNdQIfZLzmCf8y7N7iOjAPQZDAC0m9yyiG9P9hMDIfhXIYNlLWJXbjMkGemoOiS9HD0KUOpwVxBlYVg5tN0oiJsXbocl_341bJG8RyCqesKy0wx9eXiX5b5eb2agGHw1X8U1SaTsDwFXNr4nnReUyEEuUQRN1YS16FlTKc4y9LdBnl1NBlSbY1srneQHiNfrND_UZAw Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:55:28 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1358.27 YahooMailWebService/0.7.338.2 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> <9ada8ecd0909081505o782b4a55od3462e99d486214b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:55:28 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909081505o782b4a55od3462e99d486214b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1770377924-1252461328=:63099" X-archive-position: 16125 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0-1770377924-1252461328=:63099 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ________________________________ From: Squark Rabinovich To: lojban-list@lojban.org Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:05:22 PM Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo 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). Nope,they aren't the same 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 ? Butlo and le are about individuals, just more than one of them (possibly) at a time and they are neither of them about masses at all. 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. Well, masses are individuals, just a different kind from what they are masses of usually and it is unclear whether an individual is a degenerate mass (largely because it is unclear what a mass is). 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? --0-1770377924-1252461328=:63099 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii


From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:05:22 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo

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).
 Nope, they aren't the same

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 ?
But lo and le are about individuals, just more than one of them (possibly) at a time and they are neither of them about masses at all.

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.
Well, masses are individuals, just a different kind from what they are masses of usually and it is unclear whether an individual is a degenerate mass (largely because it is unclear what a mass is).

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> 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?



--0-1770377924-1252461328=:63099-- 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.