From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDHxKjeBBoE1tFVdQ@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 17 14:04:35 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f141.google.com ([209.85.210.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3FBj-0004o2-Go; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:34 -0700 Received: by yxe5 with SMTP id 5sf3036836yxe.2 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:21 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yzwicDf9W0X44MKMlkzv1xpNgXjJkm3lEiAlGw8zMIg=; b=L+nsz4fhnc3AytUQW3kgOeZD1C6hnIyHMZZdDybLomq1LYT3m/pCoCeakoevCgrlQh Dt8/Vy5en4JZ8V/FNzj6y8z3myBsFnwHYezin1W/irwN0ZBqrL7e2VCV7eKvACuAFl0H 0c/eQAONh+8Qp3/Gnp3XFenh13U9V/cLOs1+M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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 :content-transfer-encoding; b=Ar4fkOKfnaVpEpDAMKDkPR4sy0Jv6dq22pY6qGxyfomFvLmqS/UiWjXHCRpW61Zppl pAjyBPePF8FNgXOLnFsCRNIO5ae57WBm3PmIhnOyvE3WDKQvru2sIl36gJj7gs4wdWz3 O1N726nLk6V1Utu3iJZFMZkCtQmz+4QGULG04= Received: by 10.101.11.14 with SMTP id o14mr217289ani.61.1271538247609; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.142.37 with SMTP id u37ls5737361ann.7.p; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.42.40 with SMTP id p40mr1342278agp.3.1271538247101; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.42.40 with SMTP id p40mr1342277agp.3.1271538247072; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.123]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 25si286316yxe.2.2010.04.17.14.04.05; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.123 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.123; Received: (qmail 68443 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Apr 2010 21:04:05 -0000 Message-ID: <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: nYPak9EVM1lR5OBPx0PPxBHQXu_WTl30.vrfdC7aXRln7QZ 8gX8w_JcUi5S3YIxAYZvq3xaNPyx6VzHaQEbLLdXqHrKqFWqPmEzS5QsC9zy rwcJsBjb93apgYdwDUxGBrRMWTTRiV66vZdF2QC3K0JBoF1C62eXUxTx5pGF 0PBSJos6v8JaEkGVljEpmTtUduLrK_8J76UyJj4jK.8D85WaontvpFBjEyOz FyOEVoX4ZcMc.kZxWu75zBwb2uwTLK_yx5xDYcByJWDpg.28zFsaUD.9OVA. N7rqT1sKz867hg5GXtg4jdwjA.mMRCLUHOjN58KJHJeMu7P9K6qmdcTPEVeJ 28bsf0FffG6JkCZI.PNKdyqmxG1R8x7sIx1Qr Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:05 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 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 14:04:05 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.123 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, how this takes me back to see that, despite protestations to the contra= ry, SOS still floats around. Item: the proliferation of connectives,all of which mean the same thing but= have to be infinitely subdivided by the narrow context in which they occur= (the largest single item in the "There must be a better way" folder for Lo= CCan3) Item: expanding 'ro da poi broda cu brode' to 'ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi= da brode' which, unless we have a new, better, way to express restricted q= uantification (I can think of several but haven't seen any mentioned lately= ), is just flat wrong , failing in the case where there are no brodas (orig= inal false, expansion true). Item: misapplying the notion of quantification out of context, by wrongly w= riting the two cases involved (assuming, for only the moment, that 'zo'e' e= tc. have anything to do with 'lo' and 'le').(illocution goes before the qua= ntifier in the first case). Item: Good ol' Mr. Broda, a notion even yet more obscure than 'zo'e' (or ev= en 'zo'e'e'), Not only is it never explained but it changes to fit whateve= r argument xorxes is presenting at the moment. In this case it seems to be= a generic thing for now, as if there were generic things rather than gener= al ways of talking about ordinary things (that is, as if the problem were w= ith gadri rather than with sentence modifiers of some sort). But it will t= urn up again in some other disguise if another argument comes along. I get the general impression that what is presently being claimed is that a= ll xorlo did was drop the implicit quantifiers on descriptions, since every= thing else seems to be unchanged. Suspect this is technically true -- tota= lly for the external quantifiers and structurally for the internal ones, al= though 'le broda cu brode' and 'lo broda cu brode' do both entail that some= thing brodes and the latter that at least of those things is a broda. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 1:09:02 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo 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" =3D "lo ge broda gi brode cu brodi"; "lo br= oda > noi brode cu brodi" =3D (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 th= e > 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 approximat= ely > 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 --=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. =20 --=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.