From lojban+bncCJbznvHdFRDl2cjeBBoEn-D9GQ@googlegroups.com Fri Apr 23 16:28:00 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5SHr-00045a-MH; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:59 -0700 Received: by gwj18 with SMTP id 18sf4137715gwj.16 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:48 -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:received :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; bh=IPAtnoRL7L9yTghB9ltz9xKOZDx3lc4s2JUy0GaLqfU=; b=wpAE4t/DGaPRdRiPDw7CVqEBvqVozTVQ1FV6lyli6T8TQkTM/R9n0NPVJc++RJwt9X 8WDjsxKAPpN4oQfYdNHPIQtJw/YhWLeiepQh3Yc3xc0YLNMYWUlaNyU2ysVWBjHpvnwf VO9DbvRO+TC+AtcNvEOzf+4zD77UTDleeAIeA= 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; b=metUzDgtlZi0OOf2KrP0e4OIWXWZEBLyK4JAguiQn52mv2AkWp2MGlKtPq9iipnV+g YW/ElNDpDJ1sTjt+qpZfJmpy2BinCRfAfG7L9yvJEG6mn7WLaeB6G8cblw2Y7+vCiz0p c2yjT63eB9d/y8WlhODVR05ghuSh0PzgJf0I0= Received: by 10.150.171.14 with SMTP id t14mr175578ybe.44.1272065253329; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.149.35 with SMTP id b35ls29527680ano.5.p; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.184.19 with SMTP id l19mr567001anp.28.1272065252731; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.184.19 with SMTP id l19mr566999anp.28.1272065252690; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f217.google.com (mail-gx0-f217.google.com [209.85.217.217]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 11si171383gxk.13.2010.04.23.16.27.31; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.217 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.217; Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so6279003gxk.8 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.97.15 with SMTP id u15mr977639anb.6.1272065251478; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.91.20 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:27:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6a2c862a-91f0-452e-9a31-0064620d5d06@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <734238.40743.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4BD060B7.5020903@gmail.com> <4BD0F4FE.8010106@gmail.com> <4BD1E52B.5040003@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:27:31 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro' From: MorphemeAddict To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e644c71e720e9c0484efc599 --0016e644c71e720e9c0484efc599 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What does "{A, B, C} broda" mean? Is it the same as "A and/or B and/or C broda"? (Is that "A a B a C broda"?) stevo 2010/4/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, And Rosta wrote: > > > > I'm not sure yet if our conceptions are equivalent. Here's why I think > they > > might differ. Suppose the referent(s) of ko'a is/are {A, B, C}. For me, > > "ko'a broda" would be true only if it's true of the collectivity {A, B, > C} > > (where the criteria for being true of a collectivity will depend on the > > particular semantics of broda). > > For me, it will be true if it's true of A, B, C, (where the criteria > for being true of three things will depend on the particular semantics > of broda). > > > For you, it would be true if it's true of > > ABC, AB, AC, BC, A, B, C. > > No, just of A, B, C. > > Which is not to say true of A, true of B and true of C. It only needs > to be true of A, B, C, where the criteria for being true of three > things will depend on the particular semantics of broda. > > > For my method to get that reading, you'd have to > > say "su'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda". > > You seem to be describing here "su'oi ko'a cu broda", not "ko'a broda". > > > Your questions & answers and my answers: > > > >> Is it necessary that each of the referents satisfy the predicate? No. > > > > me: Yes; since there is a single referent, it must satisfy the predicat= e. > > But the equivalent question asked of you would not be the identically > phrased question, it would be: > > Is it necessary that each of the primitive subcollectivities satisfy > the predicate? > > > >> Is it necessary that they satisfy it all collectively? No. > > > > me: Yes, since 'collective' is the absence of quantification over > > subcollectivities of the referent. > > OK. But then your "collective" is not quite what I meant by > "collectively". I meant, is it necessary that all the referents broda > together? For example, if it's about carrying a piano, is it necessary > that they all carry it together? In your terms, is it necessary that > all the members of the collective broda together? If it's about being > a man, is it necessary that they are all a man together? In other > words, I'm asking details about the criteria you mention above, and > the answer will probably be: there is no general answer, we need to > look at the specific predicate and the specific context. > > >> Instead of saying "is it necessary that each of the referents of 'lo > >> broda' satisfies the predicate 'broda'? No." you will say "is it > >> necessary that each primitive subcollectivity of the referent of 'lo > >> broda' satisfies the predicate? No.", and so on. I don't see it is > >> simpler. > > > > But for me, "{A,B,C} broda" makes no claims about subcollectivities. > > Neither does "A, B, C broda" for me make any claims about A, or about > B, or about C, or about AB, or about BC, or about AC (or about ABC to > the extent that it may be different from A, B, C. The claim is about > the three. That's why both of our answers would be "No, it's not > necessary". (In particular cases, the criteria for evaluating the > claim may involve looking at what happens with A, or with B, or with > AB, etc, but there is no claim about anything other that A, B, C. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=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. --0016e644c71e720e9c0484efc599 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What does "{A, B, C} broda" mean? Is it the same as "A = and/or B and/or C broda"?
(Is that "A a B a C broda"?)
=A0
stevo

2010/4/23 Jorge Llamb=EDas <= ;jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:21 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
= > I'm not sure yet if our conceptions are equivalent. Here's why= I think they
> might differ. Suppose the referent(s) of ko'a is/are {A, B, C}. Fo= r me,
> "ko'a broda" would be true only if it's tru= e of the collectivity {A, B, C}
> (where the criteria for being true = of a collectivity will depend on the
> particular semantics of broda).

For me, it will be true i= f it's true of A, B, C, (where the criteria
for being true of three = things will depend on the particular semantics
of broda).

> For you, it would be true if it= 9;s true of
> ABC, AB, AC, BC, A, B, C.

No, just of A, B= , C.

Which is not to say true of A, true of B and true of C. It only= needs
to be true of A, B, C, where the criteria for being true of three
things= will depend on the particular semantics of broda.

> For my method to get that reading, you'd hav= e to
> say "su'o subcollectivity of ko'a cu broda".=

You seem to be describing here "su'oi ko'a cu br= oda", not "ko'a broda".

> Your questions & answers and my answers:
= >
>> Is it necessary that each of the referents satisfy the pre= dicate? No.
>
> me: Yes; since there is a single referent, it m= ust satisfy the predicate.

But the equivalent question asked of you would not be the identic= ally
phrased question, it would be:

Is it necessary that each of = the primitive subcollectivities satisfy
the predicate?


>> Is it necessary that t= hey satisfy it all collectively? No.
>
> me: Yes, since 'co= llective' is the absence of quantification over
> subcollectiviti= es of the referent.

OK. But then your "collective" is not quite what I mean= t by
"collectively". I meant, is it necessary that all the ref= erents broda
together? For example, if it's about carrying a piano, = is it necessary
that they all carry it together? In your terms, is it necessary that
all= the members of the collective broda together? If it's about being
a= man, is it necessary that they are all a man together? In other
words, = I'm asking details about the criteria you mention above, and
the answer will probably be: there is no general answer, we need to
look= at the specific predicate and the specific context.

>> Instead of saying "is it necessary that= each of the referents of 'lo
>> broda' satisfies the pred= icate 'broda'? No." you will say "is it
>> neces= sary that each primitive subcollectivity of the referent of 'lo
>> broda' satisfies the predicate? No.", and so on. I don= 9;t see it is
>> simpler.
>
> But for me, "{A,B,C= } broda" makes no claims about subcollectivities.

Neither= does "A, B, C broda" for me make any claims about A, or about B, or about C, or about AB, or about BC, or about AC (or about ABC to
th= e extent that it may be different from A, B, C. The claim is about
the t= hree. That's why both of our answers would be "No, it's not necessary". (In particular cases, the criteria for evaluating the
c= laim may involve looking at what happens with A, or with B, or with
AB, = etc, but there is no claim about anything other that A, B, C.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send e= mail to lojban@googlegroups.com<= /a>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For= more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?h= l=3Den.


--
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.
--0016e644c71e720e9c0484efc599--