From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBC7-rveBBoEvaTx_w@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 21 06:27:52 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4Zxx-0007YU-2f; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:50 -0700 Received: by pvb32 with SMTP id 32sf2195100pvb.16 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:39 -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=cll+JKSzNHMSPhfI1b96n8t+jN7Qspe0PlH3WR6U0o0=; b=GjIsOvm9qU7c+i8kvAq36BjvdhVRE4BSdqYos64UmWPUpRb34usZqQsK0aGm5q5JWu WFjvcu/YW0ycJFtQYRpNvuOkwNxSZPPRAPWw31D9i67mwJyr29+l13zbQQixTUMYcbK+ x0kawGbFEHi/n2wyUsZF6leuuhAIFrQt8fUgM= 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=bgRLZHNCF818ajn1GfDhSRLMuITasnB2HmWsY81tciCUsRDv4Caslv8QBV1m2swmCm URuN5ovLcEnjDE8ur+7JqKz3W+qFGSEGKTltIYSiXB1OBZ1wHyOlaZbYhtdukCtoU13O 7OKBJ/+ZdHzuzdBaZOVfpvkPHCFSip+7a9OL8= Received: by 10.143.21.33 with SMTP id y33mr646062wfi.43.1271856443699; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.248.9 with SMTP id v9ls18205465wfh.1.p; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.26.22 with SMTP id d22mr1580506wfj.2.1271856441869; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.26.22 with SMTP id d22mr1580505wfj.2.1271856441778; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (mail-vw0-f41.google.com [209.85.212.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si1479683pzk.3.2010.04.21.06.27.20; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.41; Received: by vws4 with SMTP id 4so722674vws.14 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.167.140 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <75805.51342.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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> <102923.48908.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <75805.51342.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:27:19 -0400 Received: by 10.220.60.206 with SMTP id q14mr5774560vch.12.1271856439668; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:27:19 -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 209.85.212.41 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=e0cb4e8878b94ab1680484bf27d8 --e0cb4e8878b94ab1680484bf27d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, I was going off of the wrong thing. I wanted to quote xorxes when h= e was saying: > 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). So, if this is how you say this, how would you say "three things that are friends of me (which I will call ko'a). Three things which are called djan= , pol, and meris. Three things which carry this piano." Where all these set= s of three are not necessarily the same thing? I don't know how you can have 3 separate bridi all saying {ko'V goi ci ______} and say "yes, they're all talking about the same referent" necessarily. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM, John E Clifford wrot= e: > Well, I don't like the the 'ganai... gi ..' format since that would allow > for empty sumti, which are undesirable (if not incomprehensible) for a > variety of reasons. And yes, there is no general rule for 'ro' no= r > can I think of a reason to expect one. Sumti refer to things in a variet= y > of ways and quantifiers naturally take these differences into account. I= we > are going to have plural quantification, then that has to be the fundamen= tal > form and others derive from it. The most obvious way to deal with the > problems that appear to arise from this is to adapt the rules for > quantifiers to what is quantified over (given that we are now in fact > quantifying over things that no actual logic quantifies over and so we ar= e > winging it). If this gives undesirable results, then perhaps we need > further rules about transitivity, though these get increasingly hard to > formulate. Alternatively, we can do away with plural quantification. whi= ch > leads to problems, > given that terms have plural referents and instantiate bound variables, = so > that, then, variables don't cover their instances. Of course, we can also > drop plural reference and go back to singularity and get plurality > explicitly when needed by the distinction between, say, 'lo' and 'loi' > (well, not plurality exactly, rather the interesting correlate of it, > collectivity). Quantifiers continue to work differently depending on what > the term applied to is -- 'ro lo broda' is presumably partitive, 'ro loi > broda' multiplicative, and so on. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tue, April 20, 2010 9:49:20 PM > Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:22 PM, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Well, as I said, if you use 'ko'a' then you have at best a purely > denotative expression and you are stuck with what you get out. Which mea= ns, > of course, be careful what you do with those expressions. If you work w= ith > 'ko'a' and quantify, then you do indeed get all the pluralities and no > filter. If you work with designative expressions you get the filter. All > three of your sentences are apparently equivalent and apparently all > false.This is all about language, after all, not about reality. > > So if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that for you "ro ko'a > cu brode" and "ro lo broda cu brode" do not necessarily mean the same > even if "ko'a" and "lo broda" have the exact same referents? One can > be true and the other false? Certainly not the way I understand how > quantifiers work with sumti. For me "ro cu broda" is always > "ro da zo'u ganai da me gi da broda", i.e. "for any x, if x > is/are among the referents of , then x broda", and that for me > should work whether ro/da end up being defined as singular > quantifier/variable or as plural quantifier/variable. Alternatively, > if you don't like the ganai ... gi ... expansion (I forget which one > is the one you don't like) you can say that it's "ro da poi me > zo'u da broda", i.e. "for any x among the referents of : x > broda", for any . > > I'm not sure what you gain by treating different sumti differently. > > > The referents of plural variables are of course individuals, but may be > several of them at once -- that is the problem. Similarly some predicate= s > can take only inidivudals as arguemtns, others can take several individua= ls > as once as arguments (I'm skipping over the L-set reading with some > difficulty here). When the filter works, it filters out the inappropriat= e > cases, where one variable has an inappropriate number of referents. t al= so > filters out appropriate numbers where the predicate doesn't apply: "carri= ed > the piano" allows plural referents for its subject, but not all the the > subpluralities may be also true subjects of the predicate and so "all who > carried the piano" will not cover them, though it may cover others of the > same size or smaller. > > So you don't have any general meaning for "ro cu broda" > without knowing what the internals of are, right? > > 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. > > > > > -- > 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. --e0cb4e8878b94ab1680484bf27d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, I was going off of the wrong thing. =A0I wanted to quote xorxes when= he was saying:
> Let's say that I assign &= quot;ko'a goi la djan jo'u la pol jo'u la meris"
>=A0(no mention of any carrying or any friendships in this assignment,>=A0just a list of three people, that I assign as the referents of the=
>=A0plural variable "ko'a").
>=A0
>=A0We a= lso make this second assignment "ko'e goi lo ci pendo be mi" = (I
>=A0assign the same three referents to "ko'e", by a differ= ent method.)
>=A0
>=A0And finally "ko'i goi lo ci bevr= i be lo vi pipno" (again the same
>=A0three people are assigned,= this time to "ko'i", by a third method).

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">So, if= this is how you say this, how would you say "three things that are fr= iends of me (which I will call ko'a). =A0Three things which are called = djan, pol, and meris. =A0Three things which carry this piano." =A0Wher= e all these sets of three are not necessarily the same thing? =A0I don'= t know how you can have 3=A0separate=A0bridi all saying {ko'V goi ci __= ____} and say "yes, they're all talking about the same referent&qu= ot;=A0necessarily.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:21 A= M, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, I don't like the the 'ganai... gi ..' format since that w= ould allow for empty sumti, which are undesirable (if not incomprehensible)= for a variety of reasons. =A0And yes, there is no general rule for 'ro= <sumti>' nor can I think of a reason to expect one. =A0Sumti refe= r to things in a variety of ways and quantifiers naturally take these diffe= rences into account. =A0I we are going to have plural quantification, then = that has to be the fundamental form and others derive from it. =A0The most = obvious way to deal with the problems that appear to arise from this is to = adapt the rules for quantifiers to what is quantified over (given that we a= re now in fact quantifying over things that no actual logic quantifies over= and so we are winging it). =A0If this gives undesirable results, then perh= aps we need further rules about transitivity, though these get increasingly= hard to formulate. =A0Alternatively, we can do away with plural quantifica= tion. which leads to problems,
=A0given that terms have plural referents and instantiate bound variables, = so that, then, variables don't cover their instances. Of course, we can= also drop plural reference and go back to singularity and get plurality ex= plicitly when needed by the distinction between, say, 'lo' and '= ;loi' (well, not plurality exactly, rather the interesting correlate of= it, collectivity). Quantifiers continue to work differently depending on w= hat the term applied to is -- 'ro lo broda' is presumably partitive= , 'ro loi broda' multiplicative, and so on.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com<= br>
Sent: Tue, April 20, 2010 9:49:20 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:22 PM, J= ohn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo= .com> wrote:
> Well, as I said, if you use 'ko'a' then you have at best a= purely denotative expression and you are stuck with what you get out. =A0W= hich means, of course, be =A0careful what you do with those expressions. = =A0If you work with 'ko'a' and quantify, then you do indeed get= all the pluralities and no filter. =A0If you work with designative express= ions you get the filter. All three of your sentences are apparently equival= ent and apparently all false.This is all about language, after all, not abo= ut reality.

So if I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that for you "ro k= o'a
cu brode" and "ro lo broda cu brode" do not necessarily mean= the same
even if "ko'a" and "lo broda" have the exact same r= eferents? One can
be true and the other false? Certainly not the way I understand how
quantifiers work with sumti. For me "ro <sumti> cu broda" i= s always
"ro da zo'u ganai da me <sumti> gi da broda", i.e. &quo= t;for any x, if x
is/are among the referents of <sumti>, then x broda", and that f= or me
should work whether ro/da end up being defined as singular
quantifier/variable or as plural quantifier/variable. Alternatively,
if you don't like the ganai ... gi ... expansion (I forget which one is the one you don't like) you can say that it's "ro da poi me= <sumti>
zo'u da broda", i.e. "for any x among the referents of <su= mti>: x
broda", for any <sumti>.

I'm not sure what you gain by treating different sumti differently.

> The referents of plural variables are of course individuals, but may b= e several of them at once -- that is the problem. =A0Similarly some predica= tes can take only inidivudals as arguemtns, others can take several individ= uals as once as arguments (I'm skipping over the L-set reading with som= e difficulty here). =A0When the filter works, it filters out the inappropri= ate cases, where one variable has an inappropriate number of referents. =A0= t also filters out appropriate numbers where the predicate doesn't appl= y: "carried the piano" allows plural referents for its subject, b= ut not all the the subpluralities may be also true subjects of the predicat= e and so "all who carried the piano" will not cover them, though = it may cover others of the same size =A0or smaller.

So you don't have any general meaning for "ro <sumti> cu bro= da"
without knowing what the internals of <sumti> are, right?

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 &= 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.
--e0cb4e8878b94ab1680484bf27d8--