From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 09 17:39:05 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlXgn-00032d-BJ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:39:05 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.124]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlXgj-00031a-FZ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:39:05 -0700 Received: (qmail 85171 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Sep 2009 00:38:55 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1252543135; bh=bXA1cuwRpWSBIHBoGJis1p0euvVOoFTs0N5EpyR0eRY=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CpU6rMmlRGjFQRY1p4ZiYV/eyfx88S9Bq9EeYDERaSsYtnGJPL0Rm6RCZV0FPe1NE1LagRJs1dcl/gI0iIkoLuBYfw5nz/NmT05AGAs0qtQoCQUlwCkjKtqXkLt8C6aNbD82HXoZ6Evqyq/gQjLY8dkNcssKy1XI3jjEGUA5fKk= 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=nFSs9tJ76W42hwMKpjcObN80LMh7Qgs6BSISSlk8ODDfS1Nu85XYfsN9PQYmVye435OMNtylVmKrbo+/w/V10PBehlQ4eMrvlraUDjygiDovqp2a30XMPtXL2c2Vx+V8UpZid6nA4xjniR9zxJ41U0WswY61QlEXF01u5cUNPOk=; Message-ID: <430698.83828.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: lX306vwVM1k5eYPCtmDLuchgjuR0W4Z7.Q_q.zqjT82LZlig644dSxXPaFPBUE22eDhe2eIRmNZ8TQGASp02tWC3B74m7Htdcxgr0pyIzO4_Decw4yLD8RBvkf_8Xnb21HDLiTYezFb5BHcQzxk3tKjJeyPtz85QiXNcBh5kIFxXzUsR0d32kLZztMuh_HL1KsVVWWBR12sSINYu9VYDlPvMrE3NlDeY1ND7fTCj9C_etsS336QNfNDoVrzUbaKzG8rLbxHVTSy4vnJ3B5o1F10GJQ.JRcVVtkL2zuZsGoOBFavL6RDFaYCu3moCFBH31eS0_vBAKWJzKKIIhviRsugx5sgenWwQbLoo3R1gBFqbcEUDU0hH8dVQcIxDYhwir1V8ppeK Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:38:55 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> <925d17560909081613o6eec4c9i71c10f8f418e5c17@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091032h9c4c838x4addad9337e10f18@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560909091203x10546568pdea651459f482baa@mail.gmail.com> <9ada8ecd0909091328g2d96f57akb78541aa80ef4e4c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:38:55 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <9ada8ecd0909091328g2d96f57akb78541aa80ef4e4c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-665595077-1252543135=:83828" X-archive-position: 16141 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 --0-665595077-1252543135=:83828 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Squark Rabinovich <= top.squark@gmail.com>=0ATo: lojban-list@lojban.org=0ASent: Wednesday, Septe= mber 9, 2009 3:28:57 PM=0ASubject: [lojban] Re: xorlo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A2009= /9/9 Jorge Llamb=EDas =0A=0AOn Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:= 32 PM, Squark Rabinovich wrote:=0A>>>=0A>>> I don't = understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The=0A>>> Engl= ish translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".=0A= >>> What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.=0A>=0A>But i= t does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfo=F1d dlfhi" has no meaning, but=0A>>"lo= nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a=0A>>situation o= f carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried=0A>>thing(s) are s= pecific things the speaker has in mind and that they=0A>>describe as pianos= .=0A=0AThen lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the = piano(s)". =0AIt doesn't mean this latter but it does entail it. It doesn'= t mean the next thing either, especially since, in the usual Lojban metaphy= sics (often called epistemology), this event (and all others) always exist,= even when they don't obtain (have their positive ends pointed toward reali= ty). Nothing is said about whether we know anything about the actual numbe= r=0A=0AThis means precisely that a situation of men that carry the piano(s)= exists, but we don't know how many men are there. =0A =0A>> With the addit= ion=0A>>> of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the contex= t. The=0A>>> possible meanings are=0A>>> "A man carries the piano(s)"=0A>>>= "Some men carry the piano(s)"=0A>>> "Many men carry the piano(s)"=0A>>> "M= ost men carry the piano(s)"=0A>>> "All men carry the piano(s)"=0A>>> et cet= era,=0A>=0A>I don't think so. You seem to be saying that grammatical senten= ces in=0A>>English do have meaning, but grammatical sentences in Lojban don= 't=0A>>have meaning until we can decide which English sentence we would use= =0A>>to describe the same situation.=0A=0ANo. "Tables fall from the sky" al= so has no meaning outside context since it's unclear whether that's a gener= al property of tables or a statement about certain tables in a specific sit= uation. The only meaning that is safe to infer without context is "at least= two tables fall from the sky". In this sense "tables fall from the sky" = =3D "at least two tables fall from the sky". =0ANot equivalent, the implica= tion only goes left to right. But it is true that it could be a generic cla= im or a particular one for a particular situation. Nothing stronger is imp= lied by the first version, i.e., not "a lot of tables" or "tables generally= " or "Yesterday in Tegucicalpa" or anything else. =0A=0AThe only difference= is that in the former case it might be that the context implies a stronger= quantifier, whereas in the second case we are being explicit about not cla= iming too much.=0A =0A> and also variants with "the", although why would we= use lo rather=0A>>> than le for these?=0A>=0A>If you know that the piano i= s black, why would you say "a piano"=0A>>rather than "a black piano"?=0A=0A= No, since it would make the sentence longer. But le is as long as lo =0ABut= length doesn't appear to be the issue, which seems to be about information= conveyed. Generally, the main difference in using lo rather than le is th= e gurantee that the thing is what it is said to be and the possibility that= we can't say which ones exactly are involved..=0A =0A> Perhaps the color i= s irrelevant, or=0A>>obvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a wom= an", except that=0A>>the piano the woman carries happens to be white, so if= you had said "a=0A>>man carries a black piano", then adding "and so does a= woman" wouldn't=0A>>work anymore.=0A=0AI agree that if you want to simulta= neously refer several objects out of which some are "the specific objects y= ou have in mind" and some are generic, you have to use the generic form.=0A= =0AThey ain't no such thing as generic things, so I don't quite know what y= ou mean here, nor how it relates to xorxes' point, which is that if you ove= r specify one item, then you can't hook on another that is the same at base= but differs in the area of specificity.=0A=0A=0A>> For "loi" there are (at= least) two=0A>>>> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for wh= ich the sumti=0A>>>> is an argument applies collectively to the referents o= f the sumti, or=0A>>>> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If = "loi" is taken as=0A>>>> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" i= s silent on=0A>>>> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the col= lective or the=0A>>>> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi =3D lo gunma be= lo" theory) then=0A>>>> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a di= fferent type of=0A>>>> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much w= hich view you use,=0A>>>> pick the one you like most.=0A>>>=0A>>> I don't u= nderstand the practical difference between the views.=0A>=0A>As I said, in = practice it doesn't really matter much which view you use.=0A>=0A>>I prefer= (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers=0A>>systematic: an o= uter quantifier always tells you how many out of all=0A>>the referents of t= he sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti=0A>>whatsoever. That breaks d= own for masses if you use view (1).=0A=0AI don't get it. I thought the oute= r quantifier of loi is the number of masses. How can this break down?=0ATha= t is just the problem, in general, n l- m broda gets n brodas out of the wh= atever, but this would give rather n whatevers of m brodas each, a very dif= ferent sort of thing. =0A=0A =0AAlso, if you say "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipn= o", you can add "gi'e dasni=0A>lo xunre creka". If you use "loi", you would= be saying that they wear=0A>>a red shirt together, with "lo" each can be w= earing his own shirt.=0A=0ASuppose I say loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'= e dasni lo xunre creka Does it mean the division into groups is the same re= garding carrying pianos and regarding wearing red shirts?=0AWell, with loi = it depends on what the heck that means (drop the i by the way, gi'e joins p= redicates within a sentence), it does appear -- to me -- to require the sam= e distributivity (which gives xorxes' view an advantage). It doesn't say a= nything about groups notr division into groups.=0A =0A> Consider loi nanmu = cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the=0A>>=0A>> piano tog= ether, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?=0A>=0A>I guess= it could in principle refer to several groups, although there=0A>>is no wa= y to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already=0A>>used for the= number of members of the group, not for the number of=0A>=0A>groups.=0A>= =0A>>> If the=0A>>> later, each group can consist of one individual, in whi= ch case we are back=0A>>> to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as wi= th lo .=0A>=0A>Yes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a sin= gle=0A>>individual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanm= u"=0A>>is legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the= =0A>>distinction it makes to be relevant.=0A>=0A=0ABut since we don't know = anything about the size of the groups, there is no difference between lo na= nmu cu bevri le pipno and loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno !=0AWhat does the siz= e of the groups (what groups, by the way?) have to do with the difference b= etween lo and loi? Either they are about two totally different things, men = and groups, or they are about different distributivity patterns. Nothing a= bout size, let along knowing about size, is involved =0A=0A=0A=0A --0-665595077-1252543135=:83828 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 3:28:57 PM=
Subject: [lojban] Re: = xorlo

=0A


= 2009/9/9 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
=0A
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009= at 2:32 PM, Squark Rabinovich <= top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
=0A>
=0A> I don't understan= d. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The
=0A> English = translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".
=0A= > What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.
=0A
= =0A
But it does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfo=F1d dlfhi" has no meanin= g, but
=0A"lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a=
=0Asituation of carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried<= br>=0Athing(s) are specific things the speaker has in mind and that they=0Adescribe as pianos.

Then lo nanmu cu= bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the piano(s)". It doesn't mean this latter but it does entail it.  It doesn't mea= n the next thing either, especially since, in the usual Lojban metaphysics = (often called epistemology), this event (and all others) always exist, even= when they don't obtain (have their positive ends pointed toward reality).&= nbsp; Nothing is said about whether we know anything about the actual numbe= r

This means precisely that a situation of men that carry the= piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there. 
=0A<= div> 
<= div class=3D"im">=0A> With the addition
=0A> of context, it gets a= meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
=0A> possible mean= ings are
=0A> "A man carries the piano(s)"
=0A> "Some men carry= the piano(s)"
=0A> "Many men carry the piano(s)"
=0A> "Most me= n carry the piano(s)"
=0A> "All men carry the piano(s)"
=0A> et= cetera,
=0A
=0A
I don't think so. You seem to be saying that gr= ammatical sentences in
=0AEnglish do have meaning, but grammatical sente= nces in Lojban don't
=0Ahave meaning until we can decide which English s= entence we would use
=0Ato describe the same situation.
No. "Tables fall from the sky" also has no meaning outside = context since it's unclear whether that's a general property of tables or a= statement about certain tables in a specific situation. The only meaning t= hat is safe to infer without context is "at least two tables fall from the = sky". In this sense "tables fall from the sky" =3D "at least two tables fal= l from the sky".
Not equivalent, the= implication only goes left to right. But it is true that it could be a gen= eric claim or a particular one for a particular situation.  Nothing st= ronger is implied by the first version, i.e., not "a lot of tables" or "tab= les generally" or "Yesterday in Tegucicalpa" or anything else.
<= br>The only difference is that in the former case it might be that the cont= ext implies a stronger quantifier, whereas in the second case we are being = explicit about not claiming too much.
=0A
 
> and also variants with "= the", although why would we use lo rather
=0A> than le for these?
= =0A
=0A
If you know that the piano is black, why would you say "a p= iano"
=0Arather than "a black piano"?

No= , since it would make the sentence longer. But le is as long as= lo
But length doesn't appear= to be the issue, which seems to be about information conveyed.  Gener= ally, the main difference in using lo rather than le is the gura= ntee that the thing is what it is said to be and the possibility that we ca= n't say which ones exactly are involved..
 
=0A Perhaps the color= is irrelevant, or
=0Aobvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a= woman", except that
=0Athe piano the woman carries happens to be white,= so if you had said "a
=0Aman carries a black piano", then adding "and s= o does a woman" wouldn't
=0Awork anymore.

I agree that if you want to simultaneously refer several objects out of w= hich some are "the specific objects you have in mind" and some are generic,= you have to use the generic form.

= >> For "loi" there are (at least) two
=0A>> views: (1) it me= rely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
=0A>> is an = argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
=0A>&= gt; (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as=0A>> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on=
=0A>> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collec= tive or the
=0A>> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi =3D lo gun= ma be lo" theory) then
=0A>> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" r= efers to a different type of
=0A>> entity. In practice, it doesn't= really matter much which view you use,
=0A>> pick the one you lik= e most.
=0A>
=0A> I don't understand the practical difference b= etween the views.
=0A
=0A
As I said, in practice it doesn't real= ly matter much which view you use.
=0A
=0AI prefer (2) because it's t= he one that makes outer quantifiers
=0Asystematic: an outer quantifier a= lways tells you how many out of all
=0Athe referents of the sumti satisf= y the predicate. For any sumti
=0Awhatsoever. That breaks down for masse= s if you use view (1).

I don't get it. I th= ought the outer quantifier of loi is the number of masses. How = can this break down?
That is just the= problem, in general, n l- m broda gets n brodas out of the whatever, but t= his would give rather n whatevers of m brodas each, a very different sort o= f thing.
 
=0A
Also, if you say "lo nanmu c= u bevri le pipno", you can add "gi'e dasni
=0Alo xunre creka". If you = use "loi", you would be saying that they wear
=0Aa red shirt together, w= ith "lo" each can be wearing his own shirt.

Suppose I say loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'e dasni lo xunre creka<= /i> Does it mean the division into groups is the same regarding carryi= ng pianos and regarding wearing red shirts?
Well, with loi it depends= on what the heck that means (drop the = i by the way, gi'e joins = predicates within a sentence), it does appear -- to me -- to require the sa= me distributivity (which gives xorxes' view an advantage).  It doesn't= say anything about groups notr division into groups.
&nbs= p;
> Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the
=0A=0A> piano tog= ether, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?
=0A
=0A<= /div>I guess it could in principle refer to several groups, although there<= br>=0Ais no way to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already=0Aused for the number of members of the group, not for the number of
= =0A
groups.
=0A
=0A> If the
=0A> later, eac= h group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back
=0A>= to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo .
=0A
=0AYes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a single
=0Aind= ividual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanmu"
=0Ais= legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the
=0Adi= stinction it makes to be relevant.

But = since we don't know anything about the size of the groups, there is no diff= erence between lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno and loi nanmu cu bevri = le pipno !
What does the siz= e of the groups (what groups, by the way?) have to do with the difference b= etween lo and loi? Either they are about two totally different t= hings, men and groups, or they are about different distributivity patterns.=   Nothing about size, let along knowing about size, is involved
=0A
=0A
=0A=0A --0-665595077-1252543135=:83828-- 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.