From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRD6laneBBoEDZcuNw@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 17 16:58:17 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f141.google.com ([209.85.210.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3Hto-0006go-8R; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:58:16 -0700 Received: by yxe5 with SMTP id 5sf3165469yxe.2 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:58:02 -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=vx4TAK9w8mVFsB97ybxN5D13LMfQt/d+d15yPSPcWTs=; b=p9PujjS2PIgxsJeBKVcc7KIGD/xjhz0XcUqppepB541B+IbqVeyUJBIHImEutmDNpG E4XkqOLS8FWiTiPQHuh3Yv5aEOkLG+Ijr+5otY8ohfWPJh1IR0ys2B1K5w+iaw8+8N5T LlDnMYsC6suAcYzQDwAdZM07OSaeEx5uFjv7Y= 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=a1Cq4lRX5nZO4LtwjsEJggv9fyFLdUZb95MYMldGDkNzwELUz9/JBQMapQP7fxycgH ofIwqkSlCtOLRDyUh/zYExy27D41Z2jgdshaaqPypCT09Gb1qVyn06P7MUCqOyuqrn1E yCOMRI9iEeSvNY7eKZQx50gIsQWzyWd3SlUP4= Received: by 10.91.49.16 with SMTP id b16mr969431agk.8.1271548666575; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.93.10 with SMTP id v10ls8165140agl.3.p; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.150.2 with SMTP id c2mr1373169ago.13.1271548665880; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.150.2 with SMTP id c2mr1373168ago.13.1271548665848; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.121]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 18si53115gxk.7.2010.04.17.16.57.44; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.121; Received: (qmail 30948 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Apr 2010 23:57:44 -0000 Message-ID: <381899.30620.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: lspfO5sVM1lFz04tbPS2bAAxAj3ALYlreoH6z8WvdD2N3qD HsLOdYqzrMPWzxoNDBClHZQFzyUeIAphYlN_WWAn5nC1IvtRQ1NzY8XS3mFi k6hAb6iGTqZncJmmijZ76llVRFbXl1s.QH3cCCecP9pxdgVoI0kokVAtzXo8 6cvMEy41Tmj7EfKhT71rk4jOilZ5iTkA9QpylTaXgedDVQAYHNUzG1_2_JLC 6shi_sb7EPRQuCIbjTxmKL7aOYAY1rIDI79TPK9CeRC0942vRhxAVCEcitVB iNBfLmV_qSKdYDgceGedeVi7PsLQY3U37.Fx6Ha.kjlYPwN.9GwBnGIoESyk 20brhWRtmRlxcnYIzwBpc7wkd6yV7QAmrNNms Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:44 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:57:44 -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 68.142.199.121 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 Familiar Feces 21 (iirc) versions of 'e' all amounting to logical "and". Arose because the= use of one such ('ga... gi') was incorrect and another ('gu'a ... gu'i') = was required to do the same work. The others are a nice point as well, of = course, though with a different motivation. The best one this week is to incorporate the the whole into a single line '= ro da broda' (roughly, since this is a sentence), much like the standard sy= stem (AxFx). It has been discussed to death, but your move assumes that th= ere are no restricted quantifiers in Lojban, which is at least historically= false. Goodness, I thought we did have plural quantifiers and that was at least pa= rt of what xorlo was ultimately about. The point here however, is that 'po= i' goes with an internal quantifier in the construction of 'lo' qhilw 'noi'= is an external quantifier in the construction of 'le'. Only if you promise never to use it again. As you say, a change in the official rules but not in practice -- except fo= r a bunch of folk arguing endlessly about whether 'lo pavyseljirna cu blabi= ' is true or false id there are no unicorns. Well, in one sense, "something" ('su'o') was always plural, but I suppose y= ou mean directly. Again, I thought that was that xorlo was finally about. = To be sure, I prefer (from habit) "bunch" talk, but, since they are the sa= me thing, plural reference is fine too. Sorry about the "a". Overall, then, I guess I was taking an optimistic reading on the situation = with plural reference / L-sets. I thought it was stare decisis and, in fac= t, it is either not settled or still actively resisted. I wonder why? (not= enough people have had enough logic to have my engrained habits, and I too= k to it fairly directly -- barring some weird thing McKay said about restrc= ted quantifiers and about the whole thing being bright shiny new) ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 4:48:51 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Ah, how this takes me back to see that, despite protestations to the cont= rary, SOS still floats around. "Save Our Ship"? "Save Our Souls"? > Item: the proliferation of connectives,all of which mean the same thing b= ut have to be infinitely subdivided by the narrow context in which they occ= ur (the largest single item in the "There must be a better way" folder for = LoCCan3) Do you mean jo'u/ju'e/fa'u/joi/ce/ce'o/jo'e/ku'a/pi'u, most of which mean "and", and the ones that don't are more or less useless? I would have to agree, but I'm not sure how it relates to the present discussion. > 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= quantification (I can think of several but haven't seen any mentioned late= ly), is just flat wrong , failing in the case where there are no brodas (or= iginal false, expansion true). Discussed to death already, but you are welcome to mention the several new, better ways you can think of. > Item: misapplying the notion of quantification out of context, by wrongly= writing the two cases involved (assuming, for only the moment, that 'zo'e'= etc. have anything to do with 'lo' and 'le').(illocution goes before the q= uantifier in the first case). If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that "poi" always requires a quantifier, whether explicit or implicit, that is under the scope of the illocutionary force. I'm not totally adverse to the idea, as I'm not totally happy with a quantifier-less "poi". (But I also have my reservations, because we don't have plural quantifiers.) > Item: Good ol' Mr. Broda, a notion even yet more obscure than 'zo'e' (or = even 'zo'e'e'), Not only is it never explained but it changes to fit whate= ver 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 gen= eral ways of talking about ordinary things (that is, as if the problem were= with gadri rather than with sentence modifiers of some sort). But it will= turn up again in some other disguise if another argument comes along. Forget I even mentioned it. > I get the general impression that what is presently being claimed is that= all xorlo did was drop the implicit quantifiers on descriptions, since eve= rything else seems to be unchanged. Maybe not all, but that's the significant part, yes. > Suspect this is technically true -- totally for the external quantifiers = and structurally for the internal ones, although 'le broda cu brode' and 'l= o broda cu brode' do both entail that something brodes Only if "something" can be a plural "something". So "lo prenu cu se culno lo klaji", "people fill the streets", does entail that "something" fills the streets, namely people, but not that any one person fills the streets. > and the latter that at least of those things is a broda. Well, the "something" that brodes has to be broda, yes, though not necessarily "a broda". 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.