From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARDltOXnBBoERsP2Qg@googlegroups.com Fri Dec 03 13:01:03 2010 Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1POck7-0002vD-EE; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:01:02 -0800 Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19sf3433935pxi.16 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:24 -0800 (PST) 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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=JYopgRVLFtTIj+dmaVWiSPLhZUxUjvsC+TgIuH7jS/M=; b=TkO9U0Q567rxUYk82iuH244O4G0YQD1c6z/RdH2CB5al1Ye0dhZzCEI8hy5OlHfIEv +uRrcoP17VYpMIvFJXGxgjQJ9i89mtaa2uhzojO2z5ft4ayVwvAnj1eZ6xTeb30iPvGI wdc00i7zYvjKtSc+tzHB5ul9rjZo58chFBVws= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=S3FehAUbaBtcNJjBGuCZgLjrnww1rIOaDvckZvYbQjzbhM9tley9ycUL25P+IuyeJf KII3XlVf14WLunI/V5UeFnXBaL9OCQDeK0k2KjBO6oXCexiycZFNWuntUAKKuNbyNoS3 X+jJFBc9K8/TCumrmtq0nRGSJUtr8jwP174NA= Received: by 10.143.20.30 with SMTP id x30mr124001wfi.33.1291410021571; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.6.9 with SMTP id 9ls15283550wff.3.p; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.232.19 with SMTP id e19mr1426742wfh.36.1291410020773; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.232.19 with SMTP id e19mr1426741wfh.36.1291410020740; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com (mail-pz0-f47.google.com [209.85.210.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si2466124wfj.1.2010.12.03.13.00.19; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.47; Received: by pzk12 with SMTP id 12so1643319pzk.34 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.188.17 with SMTP id l17mr2580459wff.35.1291410019582; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.86.1 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:00:19 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] zo'u is inconsistent From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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=000e0cd2dfa47a01c9049687d309 --000e0cd2dfa47a01c9049687d309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 {zo'u} works like this if I understand correctly: PA da PA de ... zo'u -> quantifying da de ... PA bu'a PA bu'e ... zo'u -> quantifying bu'a bu'e ... zo'u -> defining the topic in an imprecisely defined sense In any case, you put a string of sumti before it. In one case, doing this quantifies over sumti. In another case, it quantifies over selbri. In still another case, it doesn't quantify over ANYTHING. .i la'e di'u .e la'e di'u xi re na se nibli .i la'e lo'u ro da le'u .e la'e lo'u ro bu'a le'u cu sumti .i to se xu toi ni'ibo lo'u ro bu'a zo'u le'u cmacrkuantifi lo'i sumti .enai lo'i selbri What is especially egregious is: However, indefinite descriptions involving the bu'a-series cannot be imported from the prenex. (CLL 16.13) which to me sounds like "there's magic going on here, so what happens every other time is forbidden in this specific case." My general thought about this is that it's awkward because the language doesn't have very strong self-referential tools for things like referring to predicates as predicates. I asked recently about how to refer to "broda-as-predicate" and was given {la'e zo broda}; I don't know if that's really adequate for things like quantification over selbri variables and so on. Any thoughts; disagreements, ideas for improvement, etc.? mu'o mi'e .latros. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --000e0cd2dfa47a01c9049687d309 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {zo'u} works like this if I understand correctly:

PA da PA de ..= . zo'u -> quantifying da de ...
PA bu'a PA bu'e ... zo= 9;u -> quantifying bu'a bu'e ...
<any other sumti> zo&= #39;u -> defining the topic in an imprecisely defined sense

In any case, you put a string of sumti before it. In one case, doing th= is quantifies over sumti. In another case, it quantifies over selbri. In st= ill another case, it doesn't quantify over ANYTHING.

.i la'e= di'u .e la'e di'u xi re na se nibli .i la'e lo'u ro da= le'u .e la'e lo'u ro bu'a le'u cu sumti .i to se xu to= i ni'ibo lo'u ro bu'a zo'u le'u cmacrkuantifi lo'i = sumti .enai lo'i selbri

What is especially egregious is:
However, indefinite descriptions in= volving the bu'a-series cannot be imported from the prenex.=20 (CLL 16.13)

which to me sounds like "there's magic goin= g on here, so what happens every other time is forbidden in this specific c= ase."

My general thought about this is that it's awkward be= cause the language doesn't have very strong self-referential tools for = things like referring to predicates as predicates. I asked recently about h= ow to refer to "broda-as-predicate" and was given {la'e zo br= oda}; I don't know if that's really adequate for things like quanti= fication over selbri variables and so on.

Any thoughts; disagreements, ideas for improvement, etc.?

mu'= ;o mi'e .latros.

--
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.
--000e0cd2dfa47a01c9049687d309--