From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC4uLzeBBoEiHBSLA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 21 08:41:25 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f155.google.com ([209.85.222.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4c1t-0000Ch-GC; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:41:24 -0700 Received: by pzk27 with SMTP id 27sf2933688pzk.2 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:51 -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=ssvet+I5QhmPFP9O0IPoDT3TCgmqsg5TKx5Jzl1k6qE=; b=JLRKorQpAY+I7i+gA2McatzFQKo0BPtuVqLuxJbdPFdKN3p/Ai/pZxLHWw9raWDDuE 6AkjZSSxdi6eLVn31e6rLdjqbeUWjNyp1KvjNC5RnPemuGeYqk+GIHe2ae4DnWMJUcXI wB9a4vblF/Tx7AeL9FO7ip99uNXS9QRBX9Z0o= 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=oKqoTY7PmRAq6Pt+dkvGZ5w2hCa/WH1l/OMslGY+bg2nipJ9F4sTY+Afs0WhrBlkI1 wBS3/JUNS+Sm7m9daNFgcf9OEcyR6XDNXMX61uqiYuKACx9FCFw5qxnVcIBiJBGeZAUj VZ3alfegc5w/vVUU2bmtG24bUD/bt2PHcZ0UI= Received: by 10.114.70.14 with SMTP id s14mr856249waa.7.1271864376072; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.38.17 with SMTP id q17ls17315482waj.0.p; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.138.39 with SMTP id q39mr6142953ann.46.1271864374725; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.138.39 with SMTP id q39mr6142948ann.46.1271864374419; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.124]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 17si11839483anx.2.2010.04.21.08.39.33; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.124 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.124; Received: (qmail 42722 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Apr 2010 15:39:33 -0000 Message-ID: <934390.40893.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: g5Al6_YVM1ns0Lv1XVgTYLschd.X5PYBMXddSSTqYk22Wic rdydrc62jQnUNV.qleXTpIMd09as4B4WQrZeqoV5zEjXBpg91aLpq_rNpFEx Vbnc6dLXVFntrAnbqki66V8CCpoEGHjL4Y2CmZu7PVMEw.jiYhvjss5chMn6 _PExGHrhiNnj.kHgz2HZBLIvhLtiRSKEqIgAGtTVyb4tnF.Nf_S1JM.EALso ZlRQWHw9aPUEitRYf6XccMuECO1IlFqlOvIePd2y_bt1a3fTx8QVBWl_OkgS qewuixiEUa5SdW6xAb7Vff0o2HUclSHjw94sSvvsme9._LBjDshyfMnQRI_Y cyamOTnHENibhaknrbvC20WsKSZYDBjKa5nI6 Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:39:32 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.102.267879 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 08:39:32 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' 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 68.142.199.124 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 ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, April 21, 2010 9:14:25 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:21 AM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > 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 var= iety of reasons. It seems to me that the two issues are independent of one another. Empty sumti are indeed weird objects, but they are weird in any context, not only when used in "me ". The weirdness of: ganai da me gi ... in a context where doesn't have any referents comes from the fact that , which is supposed to be a referring term, doesn't have any referents, not from the fact that "da me ", "da is/are among the referents of " will then have to be false, and therefore "ganai da me gi ..." true. If faced with such a sumti, the listener will respond with na'i or ki'a, i.e. "I refuse to enter the universe of discourse you are leading me to", or "please clarify because I don't get where you are leading me to", or perhaps even "ja'o", "ok, I'll play along, let's enter the realm where this apparently referentless sumti does have a referent". [Since we are on about 'ro', the fact that the antecedent here is false and= thus the universal is true is relevant, since, in any right-thinking world= , the universal is false (as a translation of 'ro lo broda', of course; if= you want the vacuous quantifier then that is just fine).] But anyway, all this is leading us astray. Let's focus on sumti with clear referents. Given a sumti with (one or more) referents, my contention is that: ro cu broda =3D ro me cu broda =3D ro da poi ke'a me zo'u da broda =3D ro da zo'u ganai da me gi da broda and that those equivalences should hold whether ro/da are defined as plural or singular. [Well, the last is different, as noted above.] If ro/da are defined as singular, all four expressions say that each referent of is broda (we probably agree about this). If ro/da are defined as plural, then my contention is that all four expressions say that any one or more of the referents of broda. You disagree with this contention. You say that even with ro/da defined as plural, we need to know something else about the referents of before we can decipher (some of) those four expressions. We need to know _how_ those referents came to be referents of before we can say what those expressions mean. That's what I find odd. (Forget about empty sumti. We are under the assumption that has one or more referents.) [But it is all standard stuff, some things come to be referent of terms by = brute force, some by calculation -- and the difference is precisely in what= the terms are: descriptions v names and 'le'. Given that things come into= the reference heap in different ways, it seems natural to expect that they= get pulled out in different ways -- by brute force or by calculation, say] > And yes, there is no general rule for 'ro' nor can I think of a re= ason to expect one. The obvious reason is simplicity. It seems to me that the onus is on you to explain why we want to bring anything more than its referents into the question. [Well, it wears a difference on its face to start with and that needs to be= accounted for. We need to trace back what 'lo broda' means in a logically = primitive language -- or rather what 'ro lo broda' means back there -- and = see what works out. Presumably, the route will be different from that for = 'ko'a' and probably even from 'ko'a go'i broda'. If not, then the symbolis= m is seriously misleading.] > Sumti refer to things in a variety of ways and quantifiers naturally take= these differences into account. Why should sumti refer to things in a variety of ways? The obvious starting point is that they refer to things period. It is the job of the quantifier, not of the sumti, to specify how those referents relate to other referents. [But the question is, how do these referents relate to the referring expres= sion.] > I we are going to have plural quantification, then that has to be the fun= damental form and others derive from it. Yes. But it seems to me that what you are introducing is not just plural quantification, but plural quantification plus some other information contained in sumti besides its referents. [Yes, because plural quantification, taken alone is clearly wrong.] > 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 (give= n that we are now in fact quantifying over things that no actual logic quan= tifies over and so we are winging it). I don't understand this point. If "ro" is singular, it quantifies over the set of referents. If "ro" is plural, it also quantifies over the same set of referents (but in the way that plural quantifiers do it). The things over which they quantify are the same things in both cases. [But, as you point out, not in the same way. And the differences there cre= ate the problems you allude to, getting pluralities where only singularity = is wanted (and probably conversly).] > If this gives undesirable results, then perhaps we need further rules abo= ut transitivity, though these get increasingly hard to formulate. Alternat= ively, we can do away with plural quantification. which leads to problems, > given that terms have plural referents and instantiate bound variables, = so that, then, variables don't cover their instances. If we use singular quantification, it is the referents of the terms that instantiate bound variables, but only one referent at a time. With plural quantification too, it is the referents of the terms that instantiate bound variables except in this case more than one referent can instantiate at the same time. [Precisely. So, if a term has a plurality of referents, it cannot instanti= ate a variable which has only one referent.] > Of course, we can also drop plural reference and go back to singularity a= nd get plurality explicitly when needed by the distinction between, say, 'l= o' and 'loi' (well, not plurality exactly, rather the interesting correlate= of it, collectivity). We could do lots of things. Personally, I don't like the loi mess. ['loi' is scarcely in a worse mess that 'lo' was a while ago and the way ou= t seems fairly clear, once we get over all the silly talk about various not= ions of mass and settle down to nice, regular, L-sets] > Quantifiers continue to work differently depending on what the term appli= ed to is -- 'ro lo broda' is presumably partitive, 'ro loi broda' multiplic= ative, and so on. How can "ro lo broda" be partitive without plural reference? What is the single referent of "lo broda" in that case? [Presumably, the L-set taken distributively. 'ro lo broda' is not a gigant= ic conjunction, taking each item in turn, rather than all at once (and then= sorting them out)] mu'o mi'e xorxes [How did we get off on this rather banal discussion? I am still trying to = figure out what xorlo means and, as usual, keep getting assurances that it = is just what it seems to be, followed by claims that amount to its being so= mething totally different.] --=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.