From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDMgbHeBBoEHGUQHg@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 19 04:39:18 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3pJq-0002N5-2h; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:39:18 -0700 Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20sf3684291gwb.16 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:39:08 -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 :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kAvjWUD1hh82wyKYGEsMnJisHjYD7h1tLioiOEOci6w=; b=RAJNeDUQWJEwtRS1Ryq3aOiBTg1zwlYVtku6TyzHf9TNja8jZAeAV/bGQXQlUJPXJz mQEf0MlkiMerJe8QuPZQMwrYehDoXanz42eaIwdMeonWncwETPzGpTMSaEMcKefU1rym 2jkxZN4XwEBaSU5us895AizVHGKstP8QeSSQE= 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 :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Tr+V/RjJQNRv648I20RCIBCfJKDjgpl9ri7+ARK7nNATXw70zcJvM6GshgI7SVnRXT 33IVlpWFy7Py/cBZQMEOzaqoi7PHJRn74QNi8Fj5MXH3CjPiUwllr5901AWxcPzzNku9 8+lhtHj6vR0mihPhwvtBfz3uAHB8jWV8JBqdM= Received: by 10.90.19.14 with SMTP id 14mr1451396ags.5.1271677132116; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.145.167 with SMTP id p39ls4115406wej.0.p; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.90.6 with SMTP id d6mr468229wef.2.1271677129619; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.90.6 with SMTP id d6mr468228wef.2.1271677129556; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f52.google.com (mail-ww0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p33si7210661wba.3.2010.04.19.04.38.48; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.52; Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so1389648wwd.25 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.156.133 with SMTP id m5mr1098776wek.115.1271676714776; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:31:54 -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 z3sm48021534wbs.10.2010.04.19.04.31.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BCC3F23.1000703@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:31:47 +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> <4BC36464.8010707@gmail.com> <4BC3B98F.5070805@gmail.com> <4BC4B763.6070903@gmail.com> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.52 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: 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 17/04/2010 19:09: > 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 b= roda >> noi brode cu brodi" =3D (roughly) "lo broda cu ge brode gi brodi". >=20 > "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. >=20 > We can do "zo'e noi ke'a ge broda gi brode cu brodi",=20 I don't remember: can't "zo'e noi ke'a ge broda gi brode" or=20 "zo'e poi ke'a ge broda gi brode" be done with a gadri and a connective (gi= hek, hek, whatever)? >> 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. >=20 > 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.) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. I agree. Generic and specific are conflatable; existential seems not to be.= (Of course this doesn't mean the gadri can't simply be ambiguous.) =20 >> 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 t= he >> generic broda", then I see why you think you can do without e-gadri. (Ho= w to >> explicitly do generics, though?) >=20 > 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. Setting the particulars of gadri aside, and thinking about (logical) langua= ge in general, generics would be the basic, primitive type, because they es= sentially involve identifying the referent by name (e.g. generic "wine" sim= ply refers to the sense of "wine"). In principle there could be a generic g= adri that simply points to the sense of the gadri's bridi-tail complement. --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.