From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDC8qfeBBoEYa4VGg@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 17 11:09:32 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3CSN-00019w-0H; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:31 -0700 Received: by vws20 with SMTP id 20sf252097vws.16 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:20 -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: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 :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=xX2dnhTLb6lLEK7LFcUduwjIIY79NArRMGnQLCLSlDI=; b=H3Ne2fH3rCh32PBJFUG3xVTCgxw9oAHcRPXPnaVZihujKSc7gjXKXku2USxkSPRCgr O1ufpsiOG6gU42TujeQeT4Ic1BEMxoDXFdydTRAJ325vR2bJMfJOr1eBPi1IvXQwVn4l VQE5jeJgyzkCsbsoZ/tTK5vqGNd3eDhREIAlM= 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:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=n2neFGGhRi/zW8CEcXW8op4vT7x320Zu71aSNLugm4bsWpENCjaexIZt4ogfsmYfif srJPK5LH3TXhiVt3Mkpo+qF8SFz3zf3oIEAlxJkJlt74KujzLry84vJcJrNpKVNwCldM 2iaothb0mwMPUDwfpOs3xmnIuOG5bY5DB/XYA= Received: by 10.220.107.154 with SMTP id b26mr163739vcp.18.1271527746516; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.70.17 with SMTP id b17ls4699144vcj.2.p; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.165.8 with SMTP id g8mr708804vcy.1.1271527745143; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.165.8 with SMTP id g8mr708802vcy.1.1271527745085; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f199.google.com (mail-qy0-f199.google.com [209.85.221.199]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a10si1547115vci.4.2010.04.17.11.09.03; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.199 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.199; Received: by mail-qy0-f199.google.com with SMTP id 37so3163198qyk.8 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:09:02 -0300 Received: by 10.229.86.16 with SMTP id q16mr3141704qcl.39.1271527743160; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:09:03 -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 209.85.221.199 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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:48 PM, And Rosta wrote: > > Also the distinction should pertain to "lo broda poi/noi" too. > "lo broda poi brode cu brodi" = "lo ge broda gi brode cu brodi"; "lo broda > noi brode cu brodi" = (roughly) "lo broda cu ge brode gi brodi". "lo ge broda gi brode" is ungrammatical. "lo gu'e broda gu'i broda" is grammatical but it's a tanru, which opens a different can of worms. We can do "zo'e noi ke'a ge broda gi brode cu brodi", but then the distinction between "poi" and "noi" just disappears, as "lo broda poi brode cu brodi" and "lo broda noi brode cu brodi" end up with the same expansion, through different routes (thanks to the associativity of "ge"). "ro da poi broda" and "su'o da poi broda" have different expansions: ro da poi broda cu brode -> ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode su'o da poi broda cu brode -> su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode and it is not easy for me to decide whether "zo'e poi broda" should pattern with one or the other (or neither). If you are thinking of "zo'e" as a pre-illocutionary "su'o da", then I suppose you end up with: zo'e poi broda cu brode -> su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi [illocutionary:] da brode But then so is: zo'e noi broda cu brode -> su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi [illocutionary:] da brode Something seems amiss there. > In your wine example, the > version with "it" is consistent with all three interpretations (generic, > specific, existential). > > I can see how a linguistic construction can be semantically ambiguous > between these interpretations, but not how the interpretations can be > conflated into one. Well, I can conflate the generic and specific interpretations into one by invoking Mr Wine (which drives pc crazy): When Mr Wine does something in a particular occasion, like being drank by me, then I can shift the specificity from being focused on the wine to just apply to the occasion and blur the two views. (Maybe we could call this the referential interpretation.) This is somewhat similar to saying that John was a once baby and now has a beard. We have no problem in shifting from the John-as-a-whole to the John-at-the-moment perspective. Granted we don't tend to think that way about Mr Wine, and temporal occasions are not completely like spatiotemporal occasions, and so on, but in principle I don't see a problem from the logical side. The existential interpretation I see as a different issue, as it is tied to quantifiers. Maybe there's a way to conflate it too through something like you do with the relative scope of the illocutionary force, I'm not sure. > Some particular broda could be the generic > broda, you're saying. Our difference was mainly terminological. > > But if you think "lo broda" means "some particular broda, which may be the > generic broda", then I see why you think you can do without e-gadri. (How to > explicitly do generics, though?) Is there a way to explicitly do John-as-a-whole? The only way I can think of is by explicitly using some predicate that suggests the as-a-whole (or the generic) view, "John the whole person", "wine the alcoholic beverage", "bus the means of transportation". But not through a gadri, because there isn't just one level of genericity, there are usually many different possible levels. > Actually, I guess the sole difference > between o-gadri and e-gadri might then be veridicality, which, mirabile > dictu, might actually suddenly make pre-xorlo gadri usage mean approximately > what the writers thought they were saying. My impression is that, for the most part, pre-xorlo gadri usage paid no mind to the prescriptive implicit quantifiers, so all that xorlo does is bring prescription in line with pre-existing usage, so that gadri are referential and not quantificational. > Maybe zo'e already is zo'e'e? > On the one hand one can see a distinction between a reading of "I ate X" > where X is some specific thing amd a reading where X is just whatever it was > I ate -- the generic thing-eaten-by-me, but on the other hand one can see > how the second reading can be treated as merely an instance of the first. I think that's right. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.