From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCKxZjpBBoEyAr7Hw@googlegroups.com Thu Jan 06 12:14:17 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PawDt-0007TU-7I; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:14:17 -0800 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf18322448wwb.16 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:14:06 -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:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sG24eTkTEDlCp94eMdyxl+Wc+KB9f149guG8zRibv8Y=; b=ctQ77gqV/ntaOtv4dIQFdsIwv30l+KyLg4xFKa60LH13Urex/hhDWHKgG6Exel+P8w 6ZmDmio0zCQ2fVQ7IuZfawJs1nogiClyUvDAMGbCLVOxWyTcrlIw5UuhUmklb2ncPucx DFykx3BPrFO+Dh3vZ4J3tktt/Fr5gJzl+keS0= 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-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:content-transfer-encoding; b=NHGt9dpojMykHnVl8gkhqYcZmfVM++AdZjtlC6efuQTiZMwJCPXe59Kr9VbnMPM/0u BQdgI3B/V9iCMkqBDmmpUZpxVCRmA9XTT9s3mGUz9Dc/ZR9dNzCgArjZ0FMIE2b5sY3Q S+w1I7uS8qGMsKzbfzDvZr2PfxNUaih9fbWo8= Received: by 10.216.161.130 with SMTP id w2mr3401414wek.13.1294344842064; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:14:02 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.246.74 with SMTP id p52ls9688990wer.1.p; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.162.74 with SMTP id x52mr1510232wek.14.1294344837774; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.162.74 with SMTP id x52mr1510231wek.14.1294344837700; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f178.google.com (mail-wy0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l26si2064667weq.6.2011.01.06.12.13.56; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.178; Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so17254708wyb.9 for ; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.182.142 with SMTP id cc14mr14696215wbb.215.1294344833114; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 11sm17078124wbj.7.2011.01.06.12.13.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:13:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D26227D.4080207@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 20:13:49 +0000 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language) References: <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D25D915.9080305@lojban.org> <4D25F6F2.7050205@gmail.com> <20110106171943.GZ17534@digitalkingdom.org> <4D260F63.7090101@gmail.com> <20110106190153.GB23787@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20110106190153.GB23787@digitalkingdom.org> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robin Lee Powell, On 06/01/2011 19:01: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:52:19PM +0000, And Rosta wrote: >> Robin Lee Powell, On 06/01/2011 17:19: >>> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:08:02PM +0000, And Rosta wrote: >>>> >>>> In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within >>>> the same clause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not >>>> the case that each of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x >>>> is one of A,B,C, it is not the case that x is the case". >>>> >>>> Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has >>>> *exactly the same ambiguity* with regard to logical scope >>>> between elements that are not explicitly prenexed. >>> >>> Show me an example please. >> >> "su'o broda ro brode cu brodi" >> >> "na ku a bu e by e cy cu broda" >> >> Ten years ago these were ambiguous. > > You're going to have to hold my hand more than that, I'm afraid. > Ambiguous how? In the case of the second one, ambiguous between the two meanings the Engli= sh version has: "It is not the case that A, B and C broda" versus "For each= of A,B,C it is not the case that it brodas". =20 >> Xorxes proposed a rule that items in higher clauses have scope >> over items in lower clauses (i.e. that items export to the prenex >> of the localmost clause) and that when two items are in the same >> clause, the leftward element has scope over the rightward. (It's a >> shame to have to 'pollute' the purely hierarchical structure of >> logical form with left-to-right order of forms, but it's by far >> the simplest way to rescue Lojban in its (then) current state. >> Perhaps the BPFK has made xorxes's rule official, in which case I >> wonder what happened to the rule about the scope of selbri tcita >> "na", and to the scope of selbri tcita in general.) > > I didn't know that was xorxes' rule; I thought left-to-right > quantifier scope was in the CLL. Yes, indeed: > http://dag.github.com/cll/16/5/ "The rule for dropping the prenex is > simple: if the variables appear in the same order within the bridi > as they did in the prenex, then the prenex is superfluous.". > > So, I'm probably failing to understand. Can you please explain it > like I'm very very stupid? My mistake -- failure of memory. Presumably the then-unofficial rule was to= generalize CLL's left-to-right rule for all elements in the bridi (with th= e possible exception of some or all selbri tcita) and to make explicit the = rule that things export to the localmost rather than outermost prenex (when= you have one bridi within another). --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.