From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCopb3eBBoEIbJIxA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 21 12:32:26 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f144.google.com ([209.85.210.144]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4feg-0002mQ-GQ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:32:25 -0700 Received: by yxe8 with SMTP id 8sf6277277yxe.25 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:32:07 -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=LG7LDlcIuZ0rKg2s3s76zEVpMPNCVb9EdAMJt2bf3Yk=; b=FG0SWVHX5oFvPrSrgRxiAMZMz30mkyQyMwC9VIHbd1bsn9+YH3yZ6BLBVaC4Zar/vl yDRD1Lg76DTwbWUcXKyKJXq25VuOUE03ip04Um/QLlDe4/tvlfU55LtxkALyX8+wLIQN mxny8LNbAbfZx4O4zV/+1pdWHd35dW6dEa8wQ= 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=P+n7fplMQKIBdpdoYovG8HnsBDSLOLbl/qJsQwJNiU8h/R1B8lU82sj6dOC7ABXhMk +96HpNGinwezgdYMiC5wvQQDae4lZgLwt/GLMUsMSsZF4WskiJqOGuxsZqhRMIlcEllz FM+KNLeHOrqcPSLcd+vA81cskQco8iMS1h8L4= Received: by 10.101.27.34 with SMTP id e34mr790405anj.48.1271878312465; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.174.37 with SMTP id b37ls13729148anp.6.p; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.19.16 with SMTP id w16mr6366756ani.58.1271878311815; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.19.16 with SMTP id w16mr6366754ani.58.1271878311731; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.122]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id g29si12161414anj.4.2010.04.21.12.31.50; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.122 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.122; Received: (qmail 752 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Apr 2010 19:31:50 -0000 Message-ID: <225049.90411.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: hB3JDXsVM1l0isc9A_ang0I1Y7A7zcLjxNV8vTkc_x8B82F jj_YL25hJ19rAII.JDLGdIH9xYvqt5nAmCiwDPPw5FKgmkwnXKcaR.JsptwF iqRtXSiNGzHLVA_7p.Ac9hl2WyMmxNobT.KyzjTK28g2yHsS4LKfXI8Mwsmr ATprNicwsN9wofe9NyExCVwkz3c26PChq5VJFVzGjA5IAiHNvtKNYnHHHsbh 1h3Et1p2Quw1wuN29kN2WnYv3L4VUyjWwmmmSDAZAk.dOryPtvPZavd6khRY DVF2lSX330dcL7u29JZLhs5ymzbHaGcGvJwaQeV4.WPuXGFzI1uSmURHcAha MDw5_YoH15FNRo55JpZSZ6SHADtq40C.DZoHA Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:31:50 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.102.267879 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 12:31:50 -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 68.142.199.122 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 1:53:13 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' 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. What other referents are involved? Refere= nts 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. [[[Well, presumably, the connection is mediated by the predicate=20 involved, 'tavla' say. But notice that the issue here is about=20 quantification, not about the relation of one referring espresions or=20 what it refers to to another.]]] >>> [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). [[[Well, you want plural reference and thus plural quantification, so, to s= atisfy you (it doesn't seem to be working) we need some other modifications= . Maybe the ones suggested are not the right ones, but randomly (I don't s= ee any rules here yet) choosing to use one kind of quantifier or another do= esn't seem to help much.]] >> 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= plural referents, and x a singular variable, then the premise is true but = the 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 enou= gh.]] Right, the corresponding inference when you have a singular quantifier 'Ax' and a plural term 'a' is: "AxFx, therefore if a is one, Fa" [[[Where did the "if a is one come from? It is not anywhere in the formula= above. And, of course, it won't help in the reverse case, even if it does= here. But it doesn't of course, because a ios not one but plural ex hypot= hesi]]] >> 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. [[[Agreed, it is needed, but it is incompatible with plural reference, with= out some further work. So we also need a plural quantifier. And then a wa= y to tell which to use. There are two ways of thinking about plural refere= nce, one as a sort of conjunction, the other as a sort collaboration (e and= joi or some such). If you use the first sort, then singular quantifiers = are no problem, but you can't do collaborative references. If you use the s= econd sort, then collaborations are easy, but singular quantifiers no long = work. Suppose a piano (or something) ways a ton and a half. Then, "all the= people who carried the whatever will be rewarded" is going to be either ei= ther vacuously false or vacuously true, even though the piano got carried (= if we are going by singulars) or either nobody gets a reward or everybody g= ets several (if we go by plurals). Since both plural reference of at least= the latter sort and plural quantification (which follows) seems useful, some trick is needed. And one that can be reliably and consistent= ly used,]]] 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.