From 3SyPFSwkJBn8dqg.urvwdjpdlo.frpormedqjrrjohjurxsv.frp@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 13 19:07:31 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f141.google.com ([209.85.210.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3SyPFSwkJBn8dqg.urvwdjpdlo.frpormedqjrrjohjurxsv.frp@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1s0k-0005nG-Jg; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:31 -0700 Received: by yxe5 with SMTP id 5sf8586766yxe.2 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:20 -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=5V5f9XG3hrifkGl3KcXKEcYYNzoipHTUuutJOLzVpYs=; b=XdxJpcYwWAdDvhGBOhLAk5x3+g4c5CfnkqrhdSaDLMAlGX1OoGKcEla++0PNed2zaV SInEfGKWSoivJExsfzOl/FlLunbBmX31/L2MxmM6T5R/77c5/9iioTV/UvV2LQm8QnB7 mRDcyRCvva2lVh/Y0VSGu1IOU1Z2hPW/WIHVM= 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=PaR4y2Zj9N/F9qHYHcnY4IlQqJe8OIB2eLQjKxJQuMSAvBe1GJ3imcPSAWOOMhMNLA 3Yzmo4a1Neko9O4ytj0yigPiec5LDgtF1ANyFKqJYk/S2cM/Mxkml/2DrXUT80B21K0Q GWHkKaaXu2EzQ9i2HUhlx8xecZfpZcYal+2EY= Received: by 10.91.182.17 with SMTP id j17mr1063859agp.1.1271210827226; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.198.222 with SMTP id v72ls123382wen.3.p; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.86.203 with SMTP id w53mr199868wee.29.1271210825079; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.86.203 with SMTP id w53mr199867wee.29.1271210825043; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p33si846801wba.7.2010.04.13.19.07.04; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174; Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so507916wyf.5 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.93.19 with SMTP id k19mr4398062wef.5.1271210823834; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:03 -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 r29sm5486902wbv.15.2010.04.13.19.07.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:07:01 +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> <4BC02ABC.8000300@lojban.org> <4BC1D15A.5030409@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 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/1e92057b7409c0c1 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 13/04/2010 23:01: > 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 predic= ate >> "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 = mu >> (ku) poi/noi" (in which perhaps more clearly the poi/noi contrast would = seem >> to be vacuous). >=20 > (No "ku" after "li mu", BTW. The terminator for LI is LOhO.) >=20 > 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. I'm fine with "so'i li mu" being "many fives", coerced by the quantificatio= n.=20 In English, one does get things like "my mother that bore me", "London that= I have luved in for so many years", which don't coerce a "many mothers/Lon= dons" interpretation. So restrictiveness needn't coerce plural interp. Also, I can't think how the poi/noi distinction can apply when there is no = predicate (selbri) present either explicitly, or implicity as when a quanti= fier is applied to a sumti. Not that any of this matters much to the meaning of formal definitions of {= le}, of course, since we agree that your no'oi, nonveridical noi, could be = used. >=20 >> Am I several steps behind where current lojbanological thinking has got = to >> on this? Is it written up anywhere? >=20 > 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. Can one get emailed a copy of the draft...? =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 > "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. Yes, I see. I can't decide if the problem goes away if "loi broda" is not "= lo gunma" but rather "zo'e noi ke'a gunma", since "PA zo'e noi ke'a gunma" = quantifies over members of zo'e. I guess it comes down to whether "zo'e noi= ke'a broda" necessarily means zo'e is a single broda (as required for "zo'= e noi ke'a gunma" to work as a solution) or whether it can mean zo'e is a b= unch of broda (as required, I'm fairly sure, by xorlo). Actually, those are= both meanings one needs to be able to express. Maybe "zo'e noi pa gunma ne= ke'a"? (The thinking in this para is low quality, so feel free to ignore i= t...)=20 =20 >>> 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 describin= g >> 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). >=20 > 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. The actual English example "came by bus" seems to me to demand a generic re= ading (because that seems to be the effect of using _bus_ without an articl= e), but if we can use, say, "I will drink wine" as an example, then the non= generic reading can be specific or nonspecific, "Ex, x is wine: I will drin= k x" being the nonspecific. >> I don't mean this as a quibble about terminology, and I'm happy to switc= h 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 a= nd >> 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 possib= le >> 'referents' (or even identifying the 'referent'). >> >> English "the" means, I think, "lo cmima be zo'e'e" with the added elemen= t of >> meaning that the addresses can identify zo'e'e. (I had a dim recollectio= n >> that there was a BAhE for that "you know which" meaning, but apparently >> not.) >=20 > "bi'u" or "bi'unai". I'm half pleased I sort-of remembered it and half dismayed I'd sort-of forg= otten it... So, "lo cmima be zo'e'e bi'u" (if UI binds to the prev word). >=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= do >> with the E/O gadri contrast... >=20 > 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. OK, I understand your point, I think. Translated into my terms, it is that = specific readings are nongeneric; so if something is viewed generically, th= en perforce it's not specific. "zo'e noi ke'a broda" effectively gives you the generic reading, since ther= e's no quantification. "PA zo'e noi ke'a broda" quantifies over tokens/memb= ers of the category. "zo'e'e", with optional noi or no'oi, gives specific, = and "PA zo'e'e" quantifies over tokens/members of "zo'e'e". That seems pret= ty straightforward... (Admittedly, not straightforward if the goal is to pa= raphrase gadri using fairly common nonexperimental cmavo.) --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.