From 3u3DESwoJBjwhhjjYkZgYqekYgj.amkjmhZYlemmejcepmsnq.amk@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 13 06:25:45 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f165.google.com ([209.85.221.165]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3u3DESwoJBjwhhjjYkZgYqekYgj.amkjmhZYlemmejcepmsnq.amk@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1g7T-0006d5-Oy; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:45 -0700 Received: by qyk37 with SMTP id 37sf14306628qyk.20 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SuEVJN/PDbNL4U3kryfOm5fLjza7SJp63taY4rASm/c=; b=3cfiVT3RAutxYbWPHsZBHJBOd1U65gD/ldIbmjdEOrBCf7jUu7HGQf54ySY1+BBx6S 52SExg5S312sY/5ynHWIZZrVQFqPPnv6rSYTMHyL7wC5nW4KsVwHJ3NJLR1eRy1+WTeA IKKS54AGgGxsalHn1ArB/R3/tSp7UVuETOx1o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=UtcXkvgrWHDI0w2yBbHHa5FYs6I/nx2WTMcki6XGsqN/5be5zK5ci3r95kBkwf6hd+ 7bAT3QxytkApZzWtOxOpGoGCPj/nOHiGHpOth7FJR22czZXPgkkIho7RQPpcaZnA1iXI MbTw6qbDofngfwttCLrRzmIkY0nuL7z2bVpXE= Received: by 10.229.106.134 with SMTP id x6mr180646qco.18.1271165115545; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.34.9 with SMTP id j9ls265712qcd.3.p; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.233.68 with SMTP id jx4mr383059qcb.28.1271165111599; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.233.68 with SMTP id jx4mr383058qcb.28.1271165111557; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.149]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si759111qyk.6.2010.04.13.06.25.10; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.149 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.149; Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so2267231qwc.10 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BBF197D.6080601@lojban.org> <20100409222518.GN11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BC02ABC.8000300@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:25:10 -0300 Received: by 10.229.230.65 with SMTP id jl1mr8434712qcb.7.1271165110344; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/3174b1da6fce56f8 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:23 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 12/04/2010 22:57: >> If I remember correctly, the reason I decided against "voi" was that >> "voi" is defined as the non-veridical counterpart of "poi", and what I >> wanted was a non-veridical counterpart of "noi". > > That objection had occurred to me, but it seems to me that the > restrictive--nonrestrictive distinction isn't applicable -- that "le du k= u > noi broda" and "le du ku poi broda" don't differ in meaning. "ko'a poi broda" means that from the set of referents of ko'a I'm only taking some subset, those that satisfy broda. But in "le broda" there is no superset of referents that I have in mind, such that out of those only the ones that I'm describing as broda are selected. The only referents ever in play are those of "le broda", not some restriction from a superset consisting of the referents of "le du". >> But I don't really have any clear understanding of what "zo'e'e" could >> be used for, other than to define "le". > > Surely the meanings "le du", "a certain something or someone" are fairly > obvious and useful. If "lo du" =3D "zo'e", then "le du" might equally wel= l > have a KOhA counterpart. Hmm... yes, I see. Assuming "le" is useful, there should be a KOhA that is to "le" as "zo'e" is to "lo", yes. > Furthermore, the syntax of "zo'e'e no'oi ke'a > broda" more closely matches the structure of the semantics. Yes, I agree with that, "noi mi ke'a do skicu" is something of a kludge. (BTW, "lo gunma be lo" for "loi" is also something of a kludge, for a different reason, but at this point close enough for government work.) >> My current, tentative, >> understanding is that specificity is mostly a matter of degree rather >> than an on/off thing, so not really something that needs its own >> gadri, and I'm experimenting with using "lo" as the only gadri. > > Have you written up your tentative understanding? Or could you explain it= ? Well, maybe degree is not quite what I meant. What I'm trying to say (still very tentatively) is that specificity is a matter of perspective, depending on the level of abstraction one chooses to use in the analysis. Consider "They came by bus." If we analyse it from a perspective where the universe of discourse contains {bus, train, car, bicycle}, then "bus" is specific, we are saying "they came by x" where x is a constant with a perfectly identified individual referent in the universe of discurse. If we analyse it from a perspective where the universe of discourse contains {the 21 bus, the 33 bus, the 60 bus, the 69 bus}, all of which are buses, then "bus" is non-specific, we are saying "Ex, x is a bus: they came by x". But it's hard to say that we are dealing with two different meanings, to me they are just two perspectives on the same meaning, unless there are contextual reasons to prefer one universe of discourse over the other. And "the 21 bus" is also not a rock bottom individual, since it two can be seen from two perspectives, and this concretizing can go on indefinitely. (pc will probably want to argue that there is an objective rock bottom, but let's stay away from that putative rock bottom for the moment so that we have the two perspectives easily available.) My (tentative) contention is that this double perspective is always available, and if that's the case then deciding whether a given term is specific or not is arbitrary (and the decision need not be made). "le" could be an indication to take the specific perspective, while "lo" remains non-commital. The non-specific perspective is achieved by forcing an explicit quantifier. > My view of specificity is that it involves existential quantification > outside the scope of the sentence's illocutionary force (which IMO is wha= t > 'conventional implicatures' are -- stuff in the logical form but outside = the > scope of illocutionary force). E.g. "A (certain) child laughed", "le verb= a > cu cmila" mean "Ex, x is a child: I-hereby-state-that x laughed", so what= is > asserted is "x laughed", in which, taken in isolation, x looks like a > constant that is not identified. So to me, specificity is on/off rather t= han > scalar. I think you're looking at yet another dimension in which specific is different from non-specific than the one I was considering. You are looking at where the quantifier is with respect to illocutionary force, and I'm looking at where the quantifier is with respect to fixing the level of abstraction. (Or maybe I'm just hallucinating, I don't feel like I have any firm grasp on specificity yet.) mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.