From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDvqcTuBBoESpRPIg@googlegroups.com Mon May 16 05:13:50 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QLwgE-0008S0-1f; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:50 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf16913960qwh.16 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:40 -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 :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=htrx7AfvozqxdQoO4VqY0+WEEjPUWrV4/zxISQcWxZ8=; b=pN1GbIUrkTjS7miXXt6i1Vokynp4fV44ZDtxSCzipIXQAbVbtc68EdniEfGBaNvwcZ fAOdR/688DPgR8iNMm1dDww2vwvTaKv8Ma6V7Cc6/EAelFPHr9INtcXYxQxzlpf7Z+VV aJ2X6d4W2xEv6c5qurdzBPNEriMQ7V4Ui9dFs= 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-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=IGRTvH9Upj72piugpdNbKoMzJAymxEKcqj97Y+uGNRhKeYj4bP7kDQiHKntJA7aGCe tE4NESkNEz3APWFTdQZz0Cs1JIHK6bFD8j6vHi/qtvl2lyyyCxIi5Dmtk9iocFdIztqM gsEC+TiMH1URcb+HWBxXV5l7uLJ+kRH4r1Z4M= Received: by 10.224.67.193 with SMTP id s1mr368770qai.35.1305548015427; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.175.74 with SMTP id w10ls816467qaz.0.gmail; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.196.70 with SMTP id ef6mr367035qab.7.1305548014929; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.196.70 with SMTP id ef6mr367034qab.7.1305548014911; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com (mail-qy0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fz1si969879qcb.10.2011.05.16.05.13.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.176; Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so3131497qyk.14 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.6.129 with SMTP id 1mr3203746qaz.164.1305548014767; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.62.78 with HTTP; Mon, 16 May 2011 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 08:13:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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=0015175cb580a84d7104a363957b --0015175cb580a84d7104a363957b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:51 PM, tijlan wrote: > On 15 May 2011 15:58, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Although xorxes and John Clifford seem to understand my point (whether > or > > not they agree), I am least happy that I am formulating my POV in a > > comprehensible manner. And yet, here I am being sucked in again, because > > you refuse to leave it go. > > I'm trying to test out my understanding of the Lojban quantification, > rather than not to. > > > >> > Of course, since you do believe that, I hope you are prepared, > >> > because all of the trained assassins I am sending your way are deadly. > >> > You better start worrying about their cardinality. > >> > >> "all of the trained assassins" (ro lo broda), given no context, can > >> mean one thousand (ki'o lo broda) or none (no lo broda) or else. In > >> any case, it refers to "the trained assassins" (lo broda), something > >> -- not nothing, not nomei. > > > > Then I leave you with a question. If broda = "the trained assassins > that > > I am sending your way", Then "no lo xo broda"? If you insist I can only > > send you zero OF some trained assassins, then how many assassins am I > > sending you none OF? > > I don't know. > > More pertinent to my point isn't how many assassins there are, but > whether the sumti is referring to something or nothing. > > > > Please quanitfy that number for me. > > For whether you > > know the answer or not (or indeed, whether one CAN know what the answer > is > > or not), there must be some answer to it. > > Whether or not I know the answer would determine whether or not I > could truthfully quantify the number (should there be any objective > answer to it at all). I don't know 'the answer'; are you asking me to > arbitrarily make one up? > No, I am not asking you to arbitrarily make one up. I am asking you to think about exactly how many trained assassing I am sending your way, because all of them are deadly. (And if you think the answer is more than zero, that says a lot more about your paranoia then it does about lojban quanitifers.) > > There need not be any exact number as 'the answer' to "lo xo broda" in > order for "lo broda" to be a reference to broda1, something, whose > primal contrast to nothing is what has been at stake in my comments. > The dichotomy of "some quantity / no quantity" precedes the > particulars of "some quantity", such as "one" and "three". "One thing" > differs from "zero thing" primarily in that it is something as opposed > to nothing; I do not disagree with that. I am fully on board with that statement. > "three things" differ from "zero thing" primarily in that > they are both individually and collectively something as opposed to > nothing; and so on. As far as cardinality is concerned, the difference > between "zero" and "some" is more primitive than the difference > between "zero" and positive integers. The fact that "some" can be > meaningful in primitive terms of "non-zero" rather than of such > particulars as "one" or "three", warrants the act of making reference > to something with no provision for its specific total quantity. > It may not be integers, but I would think you defnitely have to be positive reals, at the very least in order to qualify "some". (su'o) > In Lojban, only "no" can exactly quantify nothing, and all non-"no" > cardinalities can be defined by means of contrast to "no": "nonai". If > I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" from your > example, I might say "nonai". > > There's no such grammatical contruct, but again, I would hate to think that you can mean by that negatives, or imaginary numbers. --gejyspa -- 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. --0015175cb580a84d7104a363957b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:51 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15 May 2011 15:58, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> = =A0 Although xorxes and John Clifford seem to understand my point (whether = or
> not they agree), I am least happy that I am formulating my POV in a> comprehensible manner.=A0 And yet, here I am being sucked in again, b= ecause
> you refuse to leave it go.

I'm trying to te= st out my understanding of the Lojban quantification,
rather than not to.


>> > Of course, since you do believe tha= t, I hope you are prepared,
>> > because all of the trained ass= assins I am sending your way are deadly.
>> > You better start = worrying about their cardinality.
>>
>> "all of the trained assassins" (ro lo broda)= , given no context, can
>> mean one thousand (ki'o lo broda) o= r none (no lo broda) or else. In
>> any case, it refers to "t= he trained assassins" (lo broda), something
>> -- not nothing, not nomei.
>
> =A0 Then I leave you wi= th a question.=A0 If broda =3D "the trained assassins that
> I a= m sending your way", Then "no lo xo broda"?=A0 If you insist= I can only
> send you zero OF some trained assassins, then how many assassins am I<= br>> sending you none OF?

I don't know.

More per= tinent to my point isn't how many assassins there are, but
whether t= he sumti is referring to something or nothing.


> Please quanitfy that number for me.
> = For whether you
> know the answer or not (or indeed, whether one CAN= =A0 know what the answer is
> or not), there must be some answer to i= t.

Whether or not I know the answer would determine whether or not I=
could truthfully quantify the number (should there be any objective
= answer to it at all). I don't know 'the answer'; are you asking= me to
arbitrarily make one up?
=A0
=A0 No, I am not asking you to arbitrarily make one up.=A0 I am asking= you to think about exactly how many trained assassing I am sending your wa= y, because all of them are deadly.=A0 (And if you think the answer is more = than zero, that says a lot more about your paranoia then it does about lojb= an quanitifers.)
=A0
=A0

There need not be any exact = number as 'the answer' to "lo xo broda" in
order for &= quot;lo broda" to be a reference to broda1, something, whose
primal contrast to nothing is what has been at stake in my comments.
The= dichotomy of "some quantity / no quantity" precedes the
parti= culars of "some quantity", such as "one" and "thre= e". "One thing"
differs from "zero thing" primarily in that it is something as op= posed
to nothing;
=A0
=A0 I do not disagree with that.=A0 I am fully on board with that stat= ement.
=A0
"three things" differ = from "zero thing" primarily in that
they are both individually= and collectively something as opposed to
nothing; and so on. As far as cardinality is concerned, the difference
b= etween "zero" and "some" is more primitive than the dif= ference
between "zero" and positive integers. The fact that &q= uot;some" can be
meaningful in primitive terms of "non-zero" rather than of suchparticulars as "one" or "three", warrants the act of = making reference
to something with no provision for its specific total q= uantity.
=A0 It may not be integers, but I would think you defnitely have to be= positive reals, at the very least in order to qualify "some". (s= u'o)
=A0
=A0
In Lojban, only "no" c= an exactly quantify nothing, and all non-"no"
cardinalities ca= n be defined by means of contrast to "no": "nonai". If<= br> I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" from your=
example, I might say "nonai".
=A0
=A0
=A0 There's no such grammatical contruct, but again, I would hate = to think that you can mean by that negatives, or imaginary numbers.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0

--
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.
--0015175cb580a84d7104a363957b--