From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCd-bzeBBoEJmh9Cw@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 21 10:58:27 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4eBp-0003MF-GU; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:58:26 -0700 Received: by gwj18 with SMTP id 18sf1107069gwj.16 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:58:15 -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=d4PmWxvXHYPEfICyQMR7gSz9sCbMi2dKFQ46a2vIZRE=; b=lPbpeA9Bd9zHq1wg5vWpjRCZPCYS8wgPDBm/EXP50DG6XcU7JM0g4L0dBTw8C86Ne/ j0n498fjhVqqmL2sQiwVBvdSRguMIE5NNbtAAHmZar7HK6jQS+eMOFF09RpFgsIbmrny uYyXQvNd4u7tWD5K5527qWdp/yq1Utp9Ci1GE= 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=d2cDDJDRx4EcF49pvXWb1BVYRfXKIXi/hP8tc8txY63ZpXs9wH6X5IG9lgSpKxiWWJ kBUKOLiwsiGcefzM3rQitXmd63D4W0kPF+o9nJ5u1VNoNYcv1PgCOYHsImoPQYvYZVC/ k6x10Jt9R2PMb1MAHbETJzglulFiTVx7zYYuA= Received: by 10.91.56.20 with SMTP id i20mr1650872agk.22.1271872669427; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.63.148 with SMTP id b20ls12104546ibi.3.p; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.252.4 with SMTP id z4mr3548030ybh.25.1271872668041; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.252.4 with SMTP id z4mr3548029ybh.25.1271872667975; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.118]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 19si854804ywh.12.2010.04.21.10.57.46; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.118 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.118; Received: (qmail 26898 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Apr 2010 17:57:46 -0000 Message-ID: <391970.26672.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: ngieIbEVM1lbBKk0coiD_xw8G1_c7eRQc3UFlA9iw6wpvuY ZLXiG7dCrPqlOjdNJsvPuwIpe5tdNwfHBgSIozg5uYAMoP3G.JFIgFmaCwJS JDDVecZUbY1klmFdZzH9AgrrfShlqO_8CTt.LA5rR8KX6i0VpmJZqoBQIRKi fJp81xxL6uTjmvuG7p3Ggu4AxBa7jwM8pzEVLZ6te45g7nX4TqwrBpxcSouL EWsUU1HTeJkRJAaEE4YZ3LSfWUmh3IZRMuRGrI8jIZ9feynZQWduz2JK0_B. itytyFj76rA_8hPUKISd1kaQiLwwYD.6r7i5oMLFp_Bsv65YWKpAIOzl64lG JzM1Wr7QhBvL6FMGeNBcXOH1OMona3l7tJFo2 Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:46 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.102.267879 References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.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> <934390.40893.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:57:46 -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 68.142.199.118 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 12:19:55 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > > [But it is all standard stuff, some things come to be referent of terms b= y brute force, some by calculation -- and the difference is precisely in wh= at the terms are: descriptions v names and 'le'. Given that things come in= to the reference heap in different ways, it seems natural to expect that th= ey get pulled out in different ways -- by brute force or by calculation, sa= y] I don't see why that seems so natural to you. To me it seems natural that how they came into the reference is not relevant to how they get pulled out. What is the advantage of taking the way they come to be referents into account, as opposed to just taking into account the simple fact that they are referents? [[As note, it allows one to use plural quantifiers without dumb results (or= with many fewer, at least)]] > [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 logicall= y primitive language -- or rather what 'ro lo broda' means back there -- an= d see what works out. Presumably, the route will be different from that fo= r 'ko'a' and probably even from 'ko'a go'i broda'. If not, then the symbol= ism is seriously misleading.] (Do you mean "ko'a goi lo broda"?) [[Probably, but I forget the plethora of cmavo with niggling differences th= at all are meant to accomplish ultimately the same thing. ]] "ro lo broda cu brode" is just an instance of the more general "ro cu brode": ro lo broda cu brode =3D ro me lo broda cu brode =3D ro da poi ke'a me lo broda zo'u da brode [=3D ro da zo'u ganai da me lo broda gi da brode] What is misleading about the symbolism? [[Well, if they are all the same and yet appear to refer to different thing= s, then some explanation at least is needed, an explanation which cannot be= just in terms of 'lo broda', since that is what apparently needs explanati= on. And, of course, the gi thingy is just wrong.]] >>> Sumti refer to things in a variety of ways and quantifiers naturally ta= ke 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 expr= ession.] We can (and do) specify that, but why should that be relevant to how they then relate to other referents? [[I'm not sure what you mean. What other referents are involved? Referent= s of what?]] >> 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.] If you say so. But I don't see what's wrong with it. It is what it is, neither right nor wrong. [[As an attempt to represent natural language expressions, it fails to give= the right results in crucial cases, as you have pointed out several times.= ]] >> 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 c= reate the problems you allude to, getting pluralities where only singularit= y is wanted (and probably conversely).] When singular quantification is wanted, we should use a singular quantifier. When plural quantification is wanted, we should use a plural quantifier. [[The point here is to avoid the redundancy.]] >> 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 instan= tiate a variable which has only one referent.] How can you say "precisely" and then conclude the opposite of what I wrote? [[How can you claim that what you say follows from its opposite, which you = also say?]] It is the referents of the term, not the term, that instantiate the variable, in both cases. The referents of a plural term can instantiate a singular variable, one at a time. The referents of a plural term can instantiate a plural variable, one or more at a time. [['AxFx, therefore Fa' is a case of instantiation. If 'a' is a term with p= lural referents, and x a singular variable, then the premise is true but th= e conclusion false, since only one referent of a, not all of them are Fs. = Or rather, there is nothing inherent to prevent this, whihc is quite enough= .]] > [How did we get off on this rather banal discussion? I am still trying t= o figure out what xorlo means and, as usual, keep getting assurances that i= t is just what it seems to be, followed by claims that amount to its being = something totally different.] This discussion has nothing or very little to do with xorlo, as far as I can tell. It started because I said "ro" has to be (it is most convenient for it to be) the singular universal quantifier, and you apparently think it ought to be the plural universal quantifier. [[If you want to have plural reference, yes.]] =20 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.