From 3QffESwoJBkkuuwwlxmtl3rxltw.nzxwzumlyrzzrwpr2z503.nzx@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 13 15:59:38 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f166.google.com ([209.85.221.166]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3QffESwoJBkkuuwwlxmtl3rxltw.nzxwzumlyrzzrwpr2z503.nzx@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1p4u-0008K9-O4; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:38 -0700 Received: by qyk38 with SMTP id 38sf9442068qyk.1 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:25 -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=HmLvNhHURWsFrdPkapvLvAUD4/CJNbrNhGFM1G2AkOE=; b=iokkg9q6yEJBVdiLveyRN5kX4J9rnqSUyLmowrjiebnRMRlE07xa5SnPuXnX/I9dPn Jwio2/DQmPoDtlaiA3coFxpmK6WQanbHiiX3P7dKpYZVBIxPSHXAuW1Kd8GrvD+UEYC4 KAxcnJGZyanfXJZtKZE8jB8fruedsK6HdXqDA= 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=Viily2kz+XYBEFZJNDnK+aNkZxvOe/WPgWsv3HIccPG3QEUCcSs2U1Lkm/bmiYoxjQ fRqC4YO4+BR1eEfsAjX3OavWBYl4w5z//AI/2nk0wwl5mtzvMbHRr4TOQSRj91H+zJDm lyofWKzgCWeEQS0RWx1nfYlBJ/hE2XRaSDNyM= Received: by 10.229.117.134 with SMTP id r6mr218079qcq.4.1271199553352; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.34.9 with SMTP id j9ls106605qcd.3.p; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.86.16 with SMTP id q16mr444904qcl.15.1271196068889; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.86.16 with SMTP id q16mr444903qcl.15.1271196068857; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.27]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si886035qyk.1.2010.04.13.15.01.07; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.27 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.27; Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so2333041qwi.27 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC02ABC.8000300@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:01:07 -0300 Received: by 10.229.217.148 with SMTP id hm20mr1859433qcb.38.1271196067662; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:01:07 -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 74.125.92.27 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/6d8ba8c1c31e7cfa Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 13/04/2010 14:25: >> >> "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 > thinking, the referent is the group; if one derives from that the predica= te > "x is a member of the group referred to", then certainly the poi/noi > distinction makes sense. Hence to me, KOhA poi/noi is comparable to "li m= u > (ku) poi/noi" (in which perhaps more clearly the poi/noi contrast would s= eem > to be vacuous). (No "ku" after "li mu", BTW. The terminator for LI is LOhO.) While "li mu" normally has a single referent, to me "li mu poi ..." immediately opens up the possibility of multiple fives, which the speaker is about to restrict in some way or another. And "so'i li mu" is grammatical, just like "many fives" is grammatical in English. Whether or not it is sensible to speak of that or not is a different matter, but I don't think the poi/noi contrast will depend on what is sensible to talk about. > Am I several steps behind where current lojbanological thinking has got t= o > on this? Is it written up anywhere? Our Bible on this subject is: http://www.amazon.com/Plural-Predication-Thomas-McKay/dp/0199278148 (or was rather, when the draft version was available online). Not that the whole book was relevant to Lojban, but one or two chapters were very illuminating. >> 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 w= ith > the "li mu" example... Or? As with "li mu", while "poi" does not absolutely require that the restriction be non-trivial, there are at least strong connotations that a non-trivial restriction is in play. At least the possibility is there, so "le du poi ..." has a potential interpretation that "le broda" does not have. >> (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... "PA loi broda" and "PA lo gunma be lo broda" are different. (At least with one understanding of "PA loi".) "PA lo gunma" is ordinary quantification over groups, while "PA loi" is quantification over the members of the group. >> Consider "They came by bus." [...] >> 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 > the contrast between generic and nongeneric readings. I agree that the > generic--nongeneric distinction is a matter of perspective (on the > population of the universe of discourse) (but not a matter of degree). But, if we choose the non-generic reading, then "bus" is specific, while if we choose the generic reading it is non-specific. So if generic-nongeneric is just perspective, then at least in some cases specific-nonspecific becomes just a matter of perspective as well. > I don't mean this as a quibble about terminology, and I'm happy to switch= to > whichever terms facilitate discussion, but I understand "specificity" to > mean the meaning "some particular individual/category/concept in the > universe 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 an= d > then, if one 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 possibl= e > 'referents' (or even identifying the 'referent'). > > English "the" means, I think, "lo cmima be zo'e'e" with the added element= of > 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 > not.) "bi'u" or "bi'unai". >> 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 = do > with the E/O gadri contrast... What I'm trying to say (I think) is that the level of abstraction, which is to some extent arbitrary, can set the stage in such a way that the issue of specificity will be affected. But I know I'm not saying anything very convincing about it at this point. 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.