From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCPmMHeBBoE8_DkKA@googlegroups.com Thu Apr 22 06:16:38 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f137.google.com ([209.85.211.137]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O4wGf-0006zF-F7; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:16:38 -0700 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf1860856ywh.28 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:16:26 -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=EMt0U/fGwwSmr6T+CakhN2/Bqz7FHLm2HMFVyf0Oa04=; b=4lfg/7L0SOJ4RmKX+GKqZ7mmYW5dNSO8bwJ60NYVVIHzGcPPEf7MROeGgilcS0Qvd/ utfQpP3xOAjcdhW4aSmQqo/Zpz1IOQx36Mo503gbHyyHBVPfPh+hl0ixf8NBm23TJj+r 4DnYcVwEx6S7BhvZoNzBeTlmsfwc3MpJ64J5I= 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=GiJcfNE9aCTKfcuv8qmDbyuY13P+gsFNIIhnho32Lwm0XLX6H65GIvoithoFrCPeTH UffQMJgzSpxcGTPX0DA/OLyDR8m4/3H/+FLjpuoHpvr4Irgv0GGs7bhXJ+vt1bTcGfOb +cScNFj9y7YGPAjqFCFvSQqF06NrFG618AbAo= Received: by 10.91.91.7 with SMTP id t7mr1101581agl.15.1271942159295; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.109.160 with SMTP id j32ls3286391wbp.0.p; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.48.22 with SMTP id v22mr7096383ybv.10.1271942156918; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.48.22 with SMTP id v22mr7096382ybv.10.1271942156886; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:56 -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 19si946335ywh.0.2010.04.22.06.15.55; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:55 -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 29762 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Apr 2010 13:15:55 -0000 Message-ID: <375137.13538.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: CpHXs.cVM1kuLMhi4yeNoMHjufnSmORg_i0jIdPA6YJuKl8 XQ_psNnb71eO6ccn3dJa0dLYb5d2Z_FQ6adNFe78vo.K9x_saTsGDHhhckpp xrHZtXWdJ8GyZzVRBgIfprjQ2GaMMstmgHIwwejSEzjjfDcc9TT0dNE1aUGl 0gdKvyHdv_BtmlZLU4RfzheS1ExySIcgyNlFgKlxcQ7heWunAzaLme6CKmR3 VtNNCFcZVLEdh0A2k2gixa8JMWjJ8Cz1oCLP6FaVi.6ZgHNqvcpcm68BcbYU 2pMm56gnyWZwn.SfKiLRHBFIPW2UrTJFFdJcoK0vtHGKqp5I8OxRYTrgC.m_ 7LjkOzfp0bBx7d3Rh3NBz5acsyo8j34R_URJC Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:55 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/348.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.102.267879 References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <934390.40893.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <391970.26672.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <225049.90411.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <734238.40743.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <831879.67797.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:15:55 -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 That's an interseting question, which is probably what this all should lead= up to. I don't know the answer. We are caught between the need for natu= ral expression and the need to be careful to say what we mean to say. Give= n that the natural expression turns out not to mean what it is meant to mea= n, how do we then go looking for either how to say it in the present system= (going into the infinite loop involved in defining quantifiers in terms of= terms defined in terms of quantifiers doesn't seem at all plausible) or ho= w to change the system to make it give the right results in some more natur= al way. Given the choice between singular and plural quantifiers (and refe= rences), there does not seem to be a direct way. Perhaps new quantifiers a= re needed, perhaps new ways of applying quantifiers, perhaps new ways of de= fining terms (or new primitive notions of some terms). But the quantifiers= have long histories and have proved adequate over centuries and in mathematical tests. The same could be said also fro the applications and = for at least some definitions of terms. So the problem seems to be a more = underlying one, perhaps the very notion of trying (with, as & notes, remark= able lack of success) to represent logical language in a speakable language= and certainly with this particular approach, with its inherited flaws from= several generations of workers. While it is the bugfuckers' (or whatever'= s) job to describe the present language, I can hope that as soon as (and pr= eferably while) they do that, work will begin on a corrected version. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 7:46:36 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > Thank you for the reductio ad absurdum. What gives the right result in t= his system is so remote from the question at hand as to demonstrate the tot= al inadequacy of the system. So: ro da poi bevri lo co'e cu ba se cnemu "Anyone who carries the thing will be rewarded." would be close to the question at hand, except it gives the wrong result, w= hile: ro da poi me lo bevri be lo co'e cu ba se cnemu "Anyone who is among the carriers of the thing will be rewarded." is remote from the question at hand, even though it gives the right result? Just adding three little words makes the system totally inadequate? OK. What's an adequate system then? 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.