From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDopbneBBoEpPAe_Q@googlegroups.com Tue Apr 20 18:21:11 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4Ocg-000880-2M; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:21:10 -0700 Received: by pwi3 with SMTP id 3sf2022527pwi.16 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:55 -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=sa3EDpecHdFo9ohrzM0Y1TCNiculNfIULbbEqgVf7Ac=; b=6vbMYfvTvKweYh+zHMPkMNAtShkuShdcU8MpvK9AuIUMmdlQwbn7jtmHhpjQBBrb1y IBkFgwfDBvbUhkJuOXkgnGOWmvVgmncTaBZO73xjUN5ygISijfs8A6qng1/TaYFo8i9I EACcjx6me3vaWRTJzTQ38SmAOmgEzuHPLuWlc= 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=w3Rau9qtEjl7PQ/GNv+zideIP/Q1+wfFkfXE1iUrI7ROC1lQzyNEONEXy+y3zviKTi 1iRaWt/FZh9jibIAayYc5Q0txxFW8abxKn1Z8z9o7bwQWkJ0O2gAue+HzgPTYOeRZ/jC Ml961VdKAslPnbRN+Y7niS2VsbZsiJSsqyLC4= Received: by 10.115.38.26 with SMTP id q26mr724970waj.26.1271812840539; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.114.253.13 with SMTP id a13ls14271060wai.3.p; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.39.3 with SMTP id r3mr1484941waj.4.1271812839112; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.39.3 with SMTP id r3mr1484940waj.4.1271812839058; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f49.google.com (mail-vw0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si1450151pzk.5.2010.04.20.18.20.37; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.49; Received: by mail-vw0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 3so670358vws.36 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.167.140 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <931037.70565.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <329209.57012.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <243775.3002.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:20:37 -0400 Received: by 10.220.108.7 with SMTP id d7mr5173169vcp.161.1271812837443; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f971b8b658ad10484b50035 --00c09f971b8b658ad10484b50035 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >ro ko'a cu ponse pa karce ro ko'e cu ponse pa karce ro ko'i cu ponse pa karce Would these all really be the same? ro gerku cu ponse pa rebla ro mlatu cu ponse pa rebla ro ractu cu ponse pa rebla But I would certainly not say that {lo go'i du lo go'e lo go'u}. Would you= ? 2010/4/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > The point is, of course, that 'ro' is plural, but filtered, by the very > nature of the expression. To be sure, if we assign the members of lo bro= da > to some 'ke'a' so that the method of their selection is lost, we may make= a > mistake and get the wrong results -- which is probably a good reason for = not > doing that or being very careful what you say after doing it. > > Let's only consider the cases where we don't make mistakes, for simplicit= y. > > Let's say that John, Paul and Mary, my three friends, carry a piano. > > Let's say that I assign "ko'a goi la djan jo'u la pol jo'u la meris" > (no mention of any carrying or any friendships in this assignment, > just a list of three people, that I assign as the referents of the > plural variable "ko'a"). > > We also make this second assignment "ko'e goi lo ci pendo be mi" (I > assign the same three referents to "ko'e", by a different method.) > > And finally "ko'i goi lo ci bevri be lo vi pipno" (again the same > three people are assigned, this time to "ko'i", by a third method). > > Can I say that "ko'a du ko'e ko'i"? I think I can, because all that > matters for "du" is whether "ko'a", "ko'e"and "ko'i" have the same > referents, not the method by which they acquired those referents. > > Are these three the same or different claims: > > ro ko'a cu ponse pa karce > > ro ko'e cu ponse pa karce > > ro ko'i cu ponse pa karce > > ? > > For me, they all say exactly the same thing. (What exactly they say > will depend on whether "ro" is singular or plural. I think it's > singular. But whatever "ro" is, surely all three statements must be > equivalent, right?) > > If ko'a/ko'e/ko'i are not just ordinary plural variables with > referents and nothing else, does Lojban have any ordinary variables at > all that have referents and nothing else? > > > The point is that 'lo broda' is designative not purely denotative, that > is, it refers to a number of things, but only insofar as they broda (unli= ke > 'ke'a', apparently, or even 'le broda'), so the designative aspect comes = in > and the quantifier can take out only what is there. Of course, if what i= s > there can be plural, then it takes out all the plurals, but if it is > individual, then it takes out only the individuals: All those who carrie= d > the piano were rewarded, subset of them (there are probably better cases = but > I can't think of any now). > > The referents of a plural variable are always only individuals. None > of the referents is ever plural. It is the variable that is plural, > not its referents. "What is there" in a plural variable are always > individuals, not "plurals". > > 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=3Den. > > --=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. --00c09f971b8b658ad10484b50035 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >ro ko'a cu ponse pa karce

=A0 =A0 ro ko'e cu ponse pa karce

=A0 =A0 ro ko'i = cu ponse pa karce


Would these all really be the same?

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">ro ger= ku cu ponse pa rebla
ro mlatu cu pon= se pa rebla
ro ractu cu ponse pa rebla

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">But I = would certainly not say that {lo go'i du lo go'e lo go'u}. =A0W= ould you?

2010/4/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail= .com>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The point is, of course, that 'ro' is plural, but filtered, by= the very nature of the expression. =A0To be sure, if we assign the members= of lo broda to some 'ke'a' so that the method of their selecti= on is lost, we may make a mistake and get the wrong results -- which is pro= bably a good reason for not doing that or being very careful what you say a= fter doing it.

Let's only consider the cases where we don't make mistakes, f= or simplicity.

Let's say that John, Paul and Mary, my three friends, carry a piano.
Let's say that I assign "ko'a goi la djan jo'u la pol jo&#= 39;u la meris"
(no mention of any carrying or any friendships in this assignment,
just a list of three people, that I assign as the referents of the
plural variable "ko'a").

We also make this second assignment "ko'e goi lo ci pendo be mi&qu= ot; (I
assign the same three referents to "ko'e", by a different met= hod.)

And finally "ko'i goi lo ci bevri be lo vi pipno" (again the = same
three people are assigned, this time to "ko'i", by a third me= thod).

Can I say that "ko'a du ko'e ko'i"? I think I can, be= cause all that
matters for "du" is whether "ko'a", "ko'e&= quot;and "ko'i" have the same
referents, not the method by which they acquired those referents.

Are these three the same or different claims:

=A0 =A0 ro ko'a cu ponse pa karce

=A0 =A0 ro ko'e cu ponse pa karce

=A0 =A0 ro ko'i cu ponse pa karce

?

For me, they all say exactly the same thing. (What exactly they say
will depend on whether "ro" is singular or plural. I think it'= ;s
singular. But whatever "ro" is, surely all three statements must = be
equivalent, right?)

If ko'a/ko'e/ko'i are not just ordinary plural variables with referents and nothing else, does Lojban have any ordinary variables at
all that have referents and nothing else?

> The point is that 'lo broda' is designative not purely denotat= ive, that is, it refers to a number of things, but only insofar as they bro= da (unlike 'ke'a', apparently, or even 'le broda'), so = the designative aspect comes in and the quantifier can take out only what i= s there. =A0Of course, if what is there can be plural, then it takes out al= l the plurals, but if it is individual, then it takes out only the individu= als: =A0All those who carried the piano were rewarded, subset of them (ther= e are probably better cases but I can't think of any now).

The referents of a plural variable are always only individuals. None<= br> of the referents is ever plural. It is the variable that is plural,
not its referents. "What is there" in a plural variable are alway= s
individuals, not "plurals".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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.
--00c09f971b8b658ad10484b50035--