From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCD6sPeBBoEw6J8zg@googlegroups.com Thu Apr 22 18:17:29 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O57W5-0003wA-9D; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:17:29 -0700 Received: by wwb29 with SMTP id 29sf217914wwb.16 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:17:06 -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:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=3O+BRGMDRtY2PaEkv1Ja6UBkp2ofZFZJBgOmhzqEj60=; b=bfOipG/q09Cq5ujOksU3VrEe/D4Fu9UmTwTOikrqxq60wGPGODLxPgaV88laYoj82I oqdtS5wqeVY1RDOpSRDvzdhnn3yIU6YNH8I1mntR+mhYy3l7Iyyg5btyN3cQuYDBRpKf 6FtoEq61K975Bq2wayV/xk/5lIg3dVsjEYhaY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=U5QklLnCpQmKq517MJ6u+u+9f+4pjt9XdZZEAfauvdZAiJ7AVKQqVX/pe/Bew4Z0NU Jwy0LzaVnCu/6E8EpI6n3uwW8VxXGHFixFoIErT7eNb/ZmcIOQ82RCjW++03pA5AGNj6 Ydkx3gGrHL9Hgj1pKBdjsW1qGbvMr6uxoFd/s= Received: by 10.223.81.194 with SMTP id y2mr58311fak.4.1271985411389; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.24.105 with SMTP id w83ls2314513wew.1.p; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.154.1 with SMTP id g1mr344849wek.24.1271985410055; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.154.1 with SMTP id g1mr344848wek.24.1271985410027; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id g1si642809wbg.6.2010.04.22.18.16.48; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1173941wyf.26 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.85.70 with SMTP id t48mr1141688wee.59.1271985408798; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [77.96.184.80] (cpc10-pres4-0-0-cust79.pres.cable.virginmedia.com [77.96.184.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z34sm846790wbv.2.2010.04.22.18.16.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BD0F4FE.8010106@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:16:46 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' 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> <4BD060B7.5020903@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 22/04/2010 22:34: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> If every possibly combination of individuals constitutes a >> group/bunch/set/collectivity, so that there is no doubt over the >> definitiion, is it necessary, and is it advantageous, to invoke plural >> quantification/predication? >=20 > Plural reference is useful to say things like: >=20 > lo tadni cu dasni lo xunre mapku gi'e sruri lo dinju > "The students wore red caps and surrounded the building." >=20 > With groups instead of plural reference, we would have to split the > claim into two: each student (not the group) wore red caps, and the > group (not each student) surrounded the building. >=20 > Or else, change one of the predicates to something like "participated > in the surrounding of the building", or "has members each of which > wore red hats". That's less appealing than just saying of the students > that they wear hats and that they (the same students that wear the > hats) surround the building. OK. But consider "The students are men and women", where you don't mean to = claim that anybody is both a man and a woman. I take that to mean "Each of = the predicates is-a-man and is-a-woman is predicated of some subcollectivit= y of the students". Likewise, your example is "Each of {wore red caps, surr= ounded the building} is predicated of some subcollectivity of the students"= . So the difficulty with Lojbanizing your English example doesn't really have= to do with problems with mixing 'collective' and 'distributive' predicates= , and the solution is one that would also handle my example. =20 > For that, we only need plural reference, not plural quantification. > According to pc, we can't have plural reference without plural > quantification. I don't have a problem with introducing let's say > "ro'oi" and "su'oi" for the plural universal and existential > quantifiers. As long as we leave "ro" and "su'o" for the usual > singular ones, which are the ones most often needed. OK. This is sensible. So my question is limited to the necessity or advanta= ge of plural reference. > That's the case for plural reference. >=20 > A second issue, completely separate from the above, is the meaning of > an expression like: >=20 > ro cu broda >=20 > given that "ro" is the singular universal quantifier, and is a > term with plural reference. >=20 > Now, a quantifier needs a domain of quantification. A term with plural > reference has a number of referents. What to do? >=20 > I know! Let's use the set of referents of the sumti as the domain of > quantification for the quantifier! (What else?) >=20 > But what if instead of a singular quantifier, we have a plural quantifier= : >=20 > ro'oi cu broda >=20 > Now, a plural quantifier also needs a domain of quantification. Again, > we note that a term with plural reference has a number of referents. > What to do? How about... let's use the set of referents of the sumti > as the domain of quantification for the plural quantifier! It's not entirely a separate question, because if there is no plural refere= nce then different answers to your questions are needed. To my way of think= ing, the ro'oi one would involve quantifying over subcollectivities of and the ro one would involve quantifying over primitive subcollectiviti= es of (where primitive =3D a subcollectivy with no subcollectivity = but itself). (When I say "to my way of thinking", I mean about the semantic representati= ons, not about what Lojban locutions are supposed to mean.) > Now comes a third issue, independent of the other two issues. >=20 > We know (or at least don't argue much about) how sumti such as ti, ta, > tu, mi, do, ri, ra, ko'a, di'u, etc. get their referents, which can be > one or many.=20 It's not clear to me that the referent can be many (rather than being a col= lectivity, if that is different from being many). > But how does a sumti like "lo broda" get its referents? >=20 > No matter how it gets them, we know that they must satisfy the broda > predicate, i.e. "lo broda cu broda". Is it necessary that each of the > referents satisfy the predicate? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy > it all collectively? No. Is it necessary that they satisfy it in > groups of seven? No. In groups of varying numbers? No, that's not > necessary either. All that is required is that its referents must > satisfy the predicate "broda", in whatever arrangement they do it, > i.e. "lo broda" =3D "zo'e noi ke'a broda", it is a sumti whose > referent(s) satisfy the predicate broda. OK. But it's plain to see how if there's only one referent then this is all= so much simpler. =20 > When we need to specify how exactly the referents of "lo broda" broda, > we have to do it by some other means, because "lo broda" by itself > doesn't say. Similarly, in "lo broda cu brode", when we need to > specify how exactly the referents of "lo broda" brode, we need to do > it in some other way, because neither "lo broda" nor "brode" do it. >=20 > What means do we have at our disposal? One is the singular universal > quantifier "ro": >=20 > ro lo tadni cu dasni lo xunre mapku > "Each one of the students wears a red cap." >=20 > What about the surrounding of the building? Well, we could say, for examp= le: >=20 > pa djine be lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju > "One ring of students surrounded the building." >=20 > Or: >=20 > ci djine be lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju > "Three rings of students surrounded the building." >=20 > After all, there are many different configurations in which the > students could surround the building together. If we are not too > concerned about the exact configuration, but we still want to insist > that they did it as a group (in case that's not obvious from the > context), we could say: >=20 > lo gunma be lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju > "A group of students surrounded the building." >=20 > As someone once said, the price of infinite precision is infinite verbosi= ty. I pretty much agree with all this. Translated into my terms, "Some subcolle= ctivity of " is similarly vague. --And. --=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.