From 3arfESwkJBjIObR.fcghOUaOWZ.QcaZcXPObUccUZSUfcidg.Qca@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 13 11:27:15 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f137.google.com ([209.85.211.137]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3arfESwkJBjIObR.fcghOUaOWZ.QcaZcXPObUccUZSUfcidg.Qca@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1kpK-0003ds-AE; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:27:15 -0700 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf2714593ywh.28 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:27:04 -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:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=QPxHORNBzp03mTsCdZuqF0N93RrSYgF3MdtudVuESFQ=; b=Tocf8ibZ2rvXYN6SaAOuCp5uKWFVPunM79iGnbsrLClEHsR1i1o48b05+qveSHMk1N xRN7V+rUxOVm6AP926yXogKwZtGu9gJCdK4q5j5PZsoMGmSxNZvE6CiNZmpOWalvZH9e RT8nabejMA23lgXIPyVjcFYcaCdKZ80xIgt7s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=FLruNZ3jtOEut2nTrFqjie3NVJsqGGepc7W01fgDtHmwBXdnzT3pva6sHBYp+O56ao 7vcHlpzIPljCC93N5baKPTLq7WbJ0qZSrG4+X+ZavQys4BPeYQV/CeQREzFVjd51fRHf dpWNOTBnDVDKHfdDbjUMCUsuGbh3rK4UZuryk= Received: by 10.91.56.20 with SMTP id i20mr975449agk.52.1271183210449; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.32.206 with SMTP id e14ls39254bkd.2.p; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.152.26 with SMTP id e26mr499822bkw.18.1271183208461; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.152.26 with SMTP id e26mr499821bkw.18.1271183208373; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com (mail-bw0-f209.google.com [209.85.218.209]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si610663bwz.6.2010.04.13.11.26.47; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.209; Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so2662554bwz.22 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.141.27 with SMTP id k27mr7239388bku.26.1271183206036; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm46757004bkd.7.2010.04.13.11.26.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:26:43 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo 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> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@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/b1a314610f6e69ac Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [I'm not sure whether technical discussion is or isn't welcome on the main = list. If it isn't, tell me where to move it. (E.g. to the jboske list if th= at were to move to Googlegroups.]) Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 13/04/2010 14:25: > 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 = ku >> noi broda" and "le du ku poi broda" don't differ in meaning. >=20 > "ko'a poi broda" means that from the set of referents of ko'a I'm only > taking some subset, those that satisfy broda. I can't get my head round the notion of multiple referents. To my way of th= inking, the referent is the group; if one derives from that the predicate "= x is a member of the group referred to", then certainly the poi/noi distinc= tion makes sense. Hence to me, KOhA poi/noi is comparable to "li mu (ku) po= i/noi" (in which perhaps more clearly the poi/noi contrast would seem to be= vacuous). Am I several steps behind where current lojbanological thinking has got to = on this? Is it written up anywhere? =20 > 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". OK, this I'm with you on. Hence the vacuity of the poi/noi contrast, as wit= h the "li mu" example... Or? =20 >>> 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 we= ll >> have a KOhA counterpart. >=20 > Hmm... yes, I see. Assuming "le" is useful, there should be a KOhA > that is to "le" as "zo'e" is to "lo", yes. >=20 >> Furthermore, the syntax of "zo'e'e no'oi ke'a >> broda" more closely matches the structure of the semantics. >=20 > Yes, I agree with that, "noi mi ke'a do skicu" is something of a kludge. >=20 > (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.) What's the kludge? I didn't spot it... =20 >>> 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 i= t? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > (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. I'm 100% in agreement on this, *except* to my thinking, you're describing t= he contrast between generic and nongeneric readings. I agree that the gener= ic--nongeneric distinction is a matter of perspective (on the population of= the universe of discourse) (but not a matter of degree). I don't mean this as a quibble about terminology, and I'm happy to switch t= o whichever terms facilitate discussion, but I understand "specificity" to = mean the meaning "some particular individual/category/concept in the univer= se of discourse" (where an individual can be a group) where the individual = isn't identified by name. So, as it were, one uses a zo'e'e and then, if on= e wishes, adds a voi clause (or converts to a "le" phrase) or a noi clause = to assist the addressee in narrowing down the range of possible 'referents'= (or even identifying the 'referent'). English "the" means, I think, "lo cmima be zo'e'e" with the added element o= f meaning that the addresses can identify zo'e'e. (I had a dim recollection= that there was a BAhE for that "you know which" meaning, but apparently no= t.) >> My view of specificity is that it involves existential quantification >> outside the scope of the sentence's illocutionary force (which IMO is wh= at >> 'conventional implicatures' are -- stuff in the logical form but outside= the >> scope of illocutionary force). E.g. "A (certain) child laughed", "le ver= ba >> cu cmila" mean "Ex, x is a child: I-hereby-state-that x laughed", so wha= t 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 = than >> scalar. >=20 > 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.) This pretty much fits with how things look to me too. But to me (i.e. to my= understanding of Lojban), the level of abstraction issue doesn't have to d= o with the E/O gadri contrast...=20 --And. --=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.