From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRD4zrHeBBoEIkTYXA@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 19 07:24:20 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f137.google.com ([209.85.211.137]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3rtV-0007xw-SF; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:24:19 -0700 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf3364052ywh.28 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:24:07 -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=odzGFRmCRU7/nCGiqHxXpsHUGkCI0kgKvNoChwjhHZk=; b=USjrZzTd3FZgElGihT5VnQaRUjEcJ7sqjZirv2H0wb1Xt0YCIRozdCJ5Ad+VZf8Rhp Glz427R3Fa+MrllHrUeaFz+Z2uT5MFkWSeZ9eCRH1ubD/VwJNP+5Weu1NLP9QZgYyrZl fZN7LbygC2u8Sh34ORfJoVCePqUNkB0T/GIPE= 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=u7ZiBhskYCNfY2AcxwdaHdCG9ppdkQMjN/aBuAgzc/h/9Ec6GqUhOm3aYt+zr8YDCt m4UsBXoKeis0ekW2uVvvbF/5gPOqwpTtME8sv1a00UYRJCizyWTXjvVbiufToMXzRo0Z OOEdXctuGJMlYphFm0SiUuPAY8ESYj79kFJ5c= Received: by 10.151.32.5 with SMTP id k5mr391787ybj.40.1271687032191; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.146.27 with SMTP id y27ls10690526ann.2.p; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.236.30 with SMTP id j30mr3764870anh.45.1271687031517; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.236.30 with SMTP id j30mr3764869anh.45.1271687031449; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.117]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 25si412359yxe.6.2010.04.19.07.23.50; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.117 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.117; Received: (qmail 82388 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Apr 2010 14:23:50 -0000 Message-ID: <991859.82338.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: iZpGfTEVM1k3VOVZRwXPaln__54fz280NH9eEMYEBmBkMFM HSpB_gsO6wKDmQxvyD9DrS9mMWuB49X5wCikuxW6St_W5vlLGXxZfz6_q6lI GOQZnM7xS0lhSYX3jceBHd99gPJuaLz0R6lj6Qh.QaX24nO5I6CM_JgxgaJn mekGbZ86ec2Ag2hv.QYZhAhaFV0zjrGiVVu9UqrXkMhzhJDysMHynpR.cPze vp1IXMzLDKfMmVYbrhF0WRyJvEVNKx4C38tTIWw7ZL6XsItdQr7ENsUO05g4 iJM0avcy.ZlDiENg1qsQj.kic_lRo0H0UkQUul5m2CRtJhUJHQ.HXG79YcoS L338kqVhe6Q-- Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:49 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC52345.7010303@gmail.com> <4BC9056F.9040705@gmail.com> <618898.68218.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <381899.30620.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <851523.82178.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:23:49 -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 68.142.199.117 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 WTF? 'su'o' is not a quantifier, only a cardinal? But cardinals are precis= ely quantifiers (whence the "quant"). I am not sure what the "illocutionar= y force" of a quantifier might be either ; that force usually applies to ut= terances as a whole. If you mean that 'su'o' here acts a particular quanti= fier, rather than as simply giving the size of the assembly -- and that it = should do the opposite -- I don't see the point. It explicitly governs a v= ariable, which looks like a quantifier to me and the whole idea of this rew= rite (insofar as it has a purpose) is to pin the 'lo' expression down to a = referent. If 'su'o' is merely a cardinal, then 'da' is unmarked and theref= ore a particularly bound variable, which is equivalent to 'su'o da' anyhow.= I see that you wanted the variable bound outside the illocution, but that= is exactly missing &'s point, that the difference between 'le' and 'lo' is= in whether the referent was assigned before or in the assertion (or whatever). The quantifier is external and real in both cases. Ah, what a fine mess! I don't suppose that 'su'o' is a problem, since cove= rs all the cases in an "or" fashion, from which only the right ones need su= rvive. On the other hand, the fact that terms have plural reference and are= what quantifiers come down to more or less forces quantifiers to have plur= al reference as well. But in the case of 'ro' this almost always yields th= e wrong results (and it gets worse with numeric quantifiers). And shifting= over to bunches doesn't help at all, but makes the problem more obvious (i= f possible). Okay, so we need a (rarely used) plural universal quantifier.= Do we need an explicitly singular -- or plural -- particular quantifier? = Not so obviously; I can't think off hand of a case where singularity or plu= rality was so important but not explicitly stated. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:39:46 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > You have it right except that the noi/poi distinction is not now needed (= and, indeed, the semantically irrelevant -- though pragmatically important = -- broda can be dropped altogether for 'lo'). I am not sure what is wrong w= ith the internal 'su'o' for 'lo' -- pragmatic considerations or are you say= ing that there is no 'su'o' in the background of 'lo'? The internal su'o is pretty harmless, it is not even a quantifier, it's just a cardinality. But in treating "lo broda cu brode" as "(illocutionary:) su'o da poi broda cu brode" you are saying that "lo" has the illocutionary force of a quantifier, an outer quantifier, a true quantifier, not the so called "inner quantifier" which is not really a quantifier at all. > I'm not clear about why we need two quantifiers with plural reference (I = think plural quantification just follows -- or reference follows from quant= ification). Plural whatever replaces singulary seamlessly -- singulary jus= t being a (not so) special case and one that need not ever be explicitly ca= lled upon. Well, suppose {A, B, C} is the set of my friends, and I want to say that each of my friends owns one car. With ordinary singular "ro", I just say: ro lo pendo be mi cu ponse pa karce Which just says that: A owns one car. B owns one car. C owns one car. but if "ro" is plural, then I am also saying that: A & B own one car. A & C own one car. B & C own one car. A & B & C own one car. i.e. "any one or more of my friends own one car". A lot more cars are now being owned. In general, the plural "ro" says too much. We could still say just what we want by restricting: ro lo pendo be mi be'o poi pa mei cu ponse pa karce so in that sense we don't "need" the singular "ro", but such restrictions sound ugly and unnatural. In terms of usability the singular "ro" is the one that we most often want. For su'o it is not so clear, but having a plural "su'o" and no plural "ro" would also be odd, so that's why I say that we would need at least two "ro" if quantifiers were plural. (Sorry about the empty post earlier.) 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.