From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDdlr3eBBoE2GyXvA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 21 12:01:34 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f144.google.com ([209.85.210.144]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4fAd-00008q-1w; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:01:32 -0700 Received: by yxe8 with SMTP id 8sf6247571yxe.25 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:01:04 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WChxAXFaAYkEyPmiHB9bdg1HZCjhiaoFnT5fn/9avN4=; b=GO4pLgu0CItaGOVHgRRw9TvqNv1aPp+8RK6xw0gG2U6jnDSeZUKwM/Qxff4iUQowu1 KvEfj+VBcPw0ndnXPdkO6V5tDJ0hUhv/tEUlYmRuj8DouU/aM2cVVMadG53l+dIHZv3E TIoOvy5iOwsHKduAon+hRMZdc5NYozQP1pXPo= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=4hTyGWbvoYk27u3CnoA/HqbYlRTxj1+Ntp4DQ3OzGIOFR6KpFN5nURLGFQXe6pRWU8 3oOaq9L3zWmhZ2jLZJFE5dq93gmdDt3RbLwWWWtrRbrKgusHGO0/i3P77CWWsjWYisku Y3hLiY0WeveGlW1IoPPTrvea5zUkEn4gg068I= Received: by 10.91.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr2569549agm.3.1271876445270; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:00:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.6.77 with SMTP id 13ls6745673bky.3.p; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.49.76 with SMTP id u12mr282479bkf.15.1271875995682; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.49.76 with SMTP id u12mr282478bkf.15.1271875995643; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com (mail-qy0-f189.google.com [209.85.221.189]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si1271725bwz.6.2010.04.21.11.53.14; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.189 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.189; Received: by mail-qy0-f189.google.com with SMTP id 27so597224qyk.23 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.79.75 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <391970.26672.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.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> <391970.26672.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:53:13 -0300 Received: by 10.229.222.12 with SMTP id ie12mr4545229qcb.77.1271875994057; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.189 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:57 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > >> [But the question is, how do these referents relate to the referring exp= ression.] > > 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. =A0What other referents are involved? =A0Re= ferents of what?]] Referents of another sumti. In general what we do is make claims about the relationships between the referents of one sumti and the referents of some other sumti. "mi tavla do" makes a claim about a relationship between the referents of "mi" and the referents of "do". As a special case, we make claims about the referents of a single sumti only. In either case, why should the way the referents of each sumti came to be referents of that sumti be at all relevant to the relationship we want to claim between those referents and the referents of another sumti, or relevant to the claims we may want to make about just those referents? It seems to me that two independent processes are involved: one is to get to the referents of each sumti, and another, different process, is the claims we may want to make about those or about how they relate to the referents of some other sumti. >>> [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 gi= ve the right results in crucial cases, as you have pointed out several time= s.]] Which is why I say we should not be using plural quantification to represent those crucial cases. The natlang each/every/all should not generally be represented with a plural universal quantifier. What I don't see, is why you say we should use it anyway, and make changes somewhere else (especially since it is not even clear what those other changes would be). >> 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. =A0If 'a' is a term wi= th plural referents, and x a singular variable, then the premise is true bu= t the conclusion false, since only one referent of a, not all of them are F= s. =A0Or rather, there is nothing inherent to prevent this, whihc is quite = enough.]] Right, the corresponding inference when you have a singular quantifier 'Ax' and a plural term 'a' is: "AxFx, therefore if a is one, Fa" >> 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.]] But just saying it doesn't make it convincing. I gave examples for why I think a singular universal quantifier is a must have. I don't see much use for a plural universal quantifier, since in the rare cases when we do want to express what it expresses we can do it via singular quantification: ro lo su'o mei be lo broda cu brode "Each of the at-least-one-somes of broda, is brode." It is a little longer than a single word, but for the rarity of its use plenty enough. Alternatively, or additionally, we could have a plural universal quantifier in addition to "ro". Perhaps something like "roro" (or something better thought out), or even a new cmavo. What I don't see as a good idea is redefining "ro" as a plural quantifier, because its use as singular quantifier is very common and needed. 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.