From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBDBrPvtBBoEVmybGg@googlegroups.com Mon May 02 09:05:36 2011 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QGvcp-0003a6-Mw; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:36 -0700 Received: by wwb13 with SMTP id 13sf10614896wwb.16 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:25 -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: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=pe3Rmu8/jSPxqSL9hcW0IfFeuL72yp5jgXOaD+77dG4=; b=q2RNnZZZAemeBSm170TgO/dzJ+W8Am5vkVsxG+xkZaN7/5dJH4/WZdmElAnuSbjR9X B793lq3byxdt5MVTDcvaiUS0uo430E5/95uGRN9yOYBq1Uo/LhivqKcfu4edkZXmvDk/ 2/fM84ywDKS54RJ79zTqFmbsw8F368OLwzw2w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references: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=G4a76DVELwBqdyKLyzG1WHIo7Nm3ulPZudd1JVGxlVZ8A1K0efgjWWGLt/9p877feG LeCU7wNqICM0WnBJ0eAXlw4MGXuPrWHcprW02YX8slX9sa+mXVL06uTuhstSjTd0egV5 +dAdYpWfv5Xe5iakclHafSD58SsDQIyW9lJtQ= Received: by 10.216.231.83 with SMTP id k61mr767864weq.18.1304352321173; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.11.92 with SMTP id 68ls431550eew.4.gmail; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.135.71 with SMTP id t47mr584163eei.55.1304352319676; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.135.71 with SMTP id t47mr584162eei.55.1304352319642; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u51si1992453eeh.2.2011.05.02.09.05.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.181; Received: by eyh5 with SMTP id 5so1930921eyh.26 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.122.193 with SMTP id t41mr3468991eeh.198.1304352319271; Mon, 02 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.29.4 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 09:04:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <412353.33616.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <412353.33616.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 12:04:59 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [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 209.85.215.181 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=e0cb4e700145a6f48104a24d30b0 --e0cb4e700145a6f48104a24d30b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, in programming terms: x =3D "hello" y =3D "hello" z =3D x; Now, x and y are "equal" in the sense that they have the same "meaning". But x and z are "equal" in a much more fundamental way. They are 2 different pointers but they are pointing at the same object. In that sense, I am asking if {no lo gerku cu blabi} and {lo gerku cu na blabi} are "equivalent" in the sense that "x" and "y" are. OR are they "equal" in the sense that "x" and "z" are? The difference being, it is possible that in some universe "x" and "y" coul= d potentially be different (as in, maybe I just haven't thought of a way yet which they are different). While "x" and "z" are the exact same thing. Another way to think of it is: I understand "equivalence" to mean "they amount to the same thing" while "equality" is "one can be derived from the other in a direct way so that it is logically impossible for the 2 things t= o differ" i.e. they share the same identity, they are just different expressions of the same thing. Just because 2 things always MEAN the same thing, does that mean that they ARE the same thing? broda cei lo gerku ku na blabi .i brode cei no lo gerku ku blabi .i xu lo du'u broda cu mintu lo du'u brode .ixu lo du'u broda cu simsa lo du'u brode kei roda .ixu lo du'u broda cu me lo du'u brode On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, John E Clifford wrot= e: > If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an implicit ro in > front, you will misunderstand what it says. > no is not a number like the others, being defined by a negation, though = it > does represent a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole > proposition (as does every quantifier), in this case by putting a negatio= n > somewhere in it. > Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or > L-sets, no is not a permissible internal quantifier. > The apple eating examples are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one nee= d > not have the same referent as 'plise' in the second. In the second 'plis= e' > refers to all apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' refers to > apples which may be contextually specified (less than all). So the secon= d > imples the first but not conversely. (What do you mean by "are teh > statements the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- clearly > they are different sentences.) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Luke Bergen > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers > > mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because there a= re > no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use context = to > assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipn= o}) > > And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like {pa}, {re}, {su'o}= , > or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quantifier of a sumti can > directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't. > > I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feels strang= e. > I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise} and {mi citka no plis= e} > really are identical (I know that the meanings of the statements are the > same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other) > > 2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas > >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen >> wrote: >> > 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? >> >> No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either. >> >> > e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (implici= t >> or >> > explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context th= at >> I >> > in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it. >> >> It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would >> translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be about any >> specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least >> one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations. >> >> > 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. >> >> I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don't think I >> would read it as "I own several of many books". >> >> > 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? >> >> No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't >> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if >> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that >> you mean "mi citka no lo plise". >> >> > Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should b= e >> > 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}. >> >> But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do you want to >> force one on it? >> >> > 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 brodad= o >> 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 t= he >> > grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojba= n >> with >> > the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}. >> > Thoughts? >> >> I at least don't. >> >> Here is an example where "su'o" fails: >> >> lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno. >> "Three men are carrying a piano." >> >> It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three >> men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all >> three doing it together. >> >> 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. >> >> > -- > 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=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@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. --e0cb4e700145a6f48104a24d30b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, in programming terms:
x =3D "hello"
y =3D "= ;hello"
z =3D x;

Now, x and y are &= quot;equal" in the sense that they have the same "meaning". = =A0But x and z are "equal" in a much more fundamental way. =A0The= y are 2 different pointers but they are pointing at the same object.

In that sense, I am asking if {no lo gerku cu blabi} an= d {lo gerku cu na blabi} are "equivalent" in the sense that "= ;x" and "y" are. =A0OR are they "equal" in the sen= se that "x" and "z" are?

The difference being, it is possible that in some unive= rse "x" and "y" could potentially be different (as in, = maybe I just haven't thought of a way yet which they are different). = =A0While "x" and "z" are the exact same thing. =A0

Another way to think of it is: I understand "equiv= alence" to mean "they amount to the same thing" while "= equality" is "one can be derived from the other in a direct way s= o that it is logically impossible for the 2 things to differ" i.e. the= y share the same identity, they are just different expressions of the same = thing.

Just because 2 things always MEAN the same thing, does = that mean that they ARE the same thing?

broda cei = lo gerku ku na blabi .i brode cei no lo gerku ku blabi .i xu lo du'u br= oda cu mintu lo du'u brode .ixu lo du'u broda cu simsa lo du'u = brode kei roda .ixu lo du'u broda cu me lo du'u brode

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM, J= ohn E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an impl= icit ro in front, you will misunderstand what it says.
no is not a numbe= r=A0 like the others, being defined by a negation, though it does represent= a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole proposition (as does ev= ery quantifier), in this case by putting a negation somewhere in it.
Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or L-se= ts, no is not a permissible internal quantifier.
The apple eating exampl= es are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one need not have the sa= me referent as 'plise' in the second.=A0 In the second 'plise&#= 39; refers to all apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' r= efers to apples which may be contextually specified (less than all).=A0 So = the second imples the first but not conversely.=A0 (What do you mean by "are teh statem= ents the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- = clearly they are different sentences.)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM<= div class=3D"im">
Subject: Re: [lojban] xo= rlo and default quantifiers

mmm, good points. =A0I guess what I was getting at is, just because there a= re no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use con= text to assume them. =A0(for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri= lo pipno})

And also that seems weird. =A0{no} is a number just like {pa= }, {re}, {su'o}, or {so'i}. =A0It seems weird that using it as a qu= antifier of a sumti can directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbe= rs can't.

I understand intuitively why that is the case. =A0But i= t still feels strange. =A0I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise= } and {mi citka no plise} really are identical (I know that the meanings of= the statements are the same, but are the statements themselves the same as= each other)

2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas = <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com= > wrote:
> 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&= #39;t {no}
> be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?

No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either.

> 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 th= at I
> in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it.

It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be ab= out any
specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations.

>=A0Furthermore, if I
> said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that pe= ople
> would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta= } or something
> like it.

I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don'= ;t think I
would read it as "I own several of many books".

> 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} s= ince there
> is no proscribed default?

No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi c= itka" you can't
expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarl= y, if
you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to unders= tand that
you mean "mi citka no lo plise".

> 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 ponse no = lo cukta}.

But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do y= ou want to
force one on it?

> =A0In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that mo= st
> tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u br= odado 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}. =A0Therefore, I argue that even if= the
> grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojba= n with
> the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}. > Thoughts?

I at least don't.

Here is an example where "su'o" fails:

lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno.
"Three men are carrying a piano."

It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three
men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all
three doing it together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=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.
--e0cb4e700145a6f48104a24d30b0--