From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDu-_btBBoETQh6Gw@googlegroups.com Sun May 01 13:09:39 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QGcxN-00025N-Le; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:38 -0700 Received: by wwb13 with SMTP id 13sf9422114wwb.16 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HB1cbAuEPVXTqqCbV3QNHaKSiIsdCmuurRJp/EnC7cM=; b=HCfmT1aw1Few3ey8KRudzhsuR5FT4G5AAwUp2gpx29c/xE+mliFuBOaykX4pRHrWxI y+MU8sCHrR2UGQ99GEO5g7IMMsI63t+D6WixfhL2tyz14bmNy8iJnNwev4MwtWnMJldw fb+IsacVJLjIecVBBqyPBjzUJtrqRU2+lZcLg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject :to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; b=4VC4z/wrl9Tx71aISeUbmamXWRky1YxOFjpSsyqsrRGH8xS/DJKfHz2J5Ui34G2gqH Dfb852BXi9iNCVUhsNJkPJ2ddD5PJwGb+T12TGFmJqaXKzLwF57Xs263hFzqc9nJ6Xc9 pfAbaoD66PRE9SPvo6iV520rZOtbksMrnWFBI= Received: by 10.216.80.30 with SMTP id j30mr484859wee.15.1304280558998; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.41.98 with SMTP id g74ls372554eeb.5.gmail; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.47.78 with SMTP id s54mr507781eeb.58.1304280557518; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.47.78 with SMTP id s54mr507780eeb.58.1304280557495; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u51si1714430eeh.2.2011.05.01.13.09.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.182; Received: by eyg7 with SMTP id 7so2026953eyg.13 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.121.9 with SMTP id q9mr840110eeh.102.1304280557193; Sun, 01 May 2011 13:09:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.29.4 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2011 13:08:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Luke Bergen Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 16:08:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e43cee14c8ad004a23c7b66 --e0cb4e43cee14c8ad004a23c7b66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. If xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn't {no} be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier? e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (implicit or explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context that I in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it. Furthermore, if I said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that people would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta} or something like it. So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about the secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} since there is no proscribed default? Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should be reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse lo cukta} could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no lo cukta}. In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that most tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u brodado na nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta .i va'o lo nu broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. Therefore, I argue that even if the grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojban with the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}. Thoughts? mu'o mi'e la .cribe. -- 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. --e0cb4e43cee14c8ad004a23c7b66 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. =A0If= xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn'= t {no} be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?

e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. =A0{lo plise} has no outer quantifier (impli= cit or explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context = that I in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it. =A0Furt= hermore, if I said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would thin= k that people would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so= 9;i cukta} or something like it.

So if context can change the assumptions that the tecus= ku makes about the secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {= no lo cukta} since there is no proscribed default?

Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it shou= ld be reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse= lo cukta} could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi pon= se no lo cukta}. =A0In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I sus= pect that most tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo d= u'u brodado na nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do = ponse lo cukta .i va'o lo nu broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. =A0The= refore, I argue that even if the grammar claims that {lo} has no default qu= antifiers, people read lojban with the assumption that {lo}'s implicit = quantifiers are {su'o}.

Thoughts?

mu'o mi'e la= .cribe.

--
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.
--e0cb4e43cee14c8ad004a23c7b66--