From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBD07_ztBBoE2gUWJA@googlegroups.com Mon May 02 16:02:38 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QH28F-0005eW-9B; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:37 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf10586872wya.16 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:16 -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=cYx6f30g52UOJWdaRHAfXyeaFuNjXnzmzB1ViOfH4uM=; b=wfbEcXYR9kgzeOvdh9s7WmIjk4hBvYdNb4q7n+fJQ7rHvThgWWKpSJcaqMuo6AWtuw 8fq2iixCl+J1A0wnvPZmNuKabC/Mini4JEx3EdLewbryxE6H+MYzbONJTBeISVEAmkc/ 40b/qkuKPDQffTAG9xnZs+CuMQb6yz4skRTF0= 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=QdY1sLYt+IKYovLEARfO0J4GiJzUF/36tMdzwirO7rhLFNtBXqXm+p/1+OvOg46Lh0 Ah92htl1uGSlT5j90WbjEaDQ4w5/acVuPXZ/hQwRpiSL1wJcq8Q6Y2s8sGlaDGt1Mtpl 6m0hxlXARql3BkUaxKrPyrpeMuyMONJd9HPnU= Received: by 10.216.137.231 with SMTP id y81mr891171wei.27.1304377332649; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.25.35 with SMTP id y35ls449211eey.2.gmail; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.51.8 with SMTP id a8mr731519eec.33.1304377331481; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.51.8 with SMTP id a8mr731518eec.33.1304377331455; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com (mail-ew0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a55si1390936eek.5.2011.05.02.16.02.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.41; Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so2142838ewy.0 for ; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.15.163 with SMTP id f35mr3203645eef.210.1304377330181; Mon, 02 May 2011 16:02:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.126.147 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2011 16:01:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 19:01:50 -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 209.85.215.41 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=0016e6542d986b274204a25303d5 --0016e6542d986b274204a25303d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmm, I understood your following statement: > 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". to mean that putting {no sumti} in a bridi effectively negates the selbri such that {mi citka no plise} =3D {mi na citka ??? plise}. And the general point that I was trying to make was that when we say that {lo} has no default quantifiers what we've done is merely shifted the assumption of what we're talking about to context. Like you said {lo broda} =3D {zo'e noi ke'a broda}. I understand {zo'e} as meaning "omitted sumti which you may or may not be able to pick up on from context". So if I see {mi viska zo'e} I would assume something like {mi viska su'o zo'e}. I certainly wouldn't assume {no} or something exotic (bu= t grammatical) like {ka'o}. If {zo'e} implicitly forces a listener to make some assumptions then so too does {lo} 2011/5/2 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke Bergen wrote= : > > mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because there > are > > no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use contex= t > to > > assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo > pipno}) > > No, I don't. If I assumed that each man carried the piano, then I > would conclude that at least one of them carried it too. If I was > forced to assume anything, it would be that none of them carried it by > himself. (But please don't interpret that as saying that I read "lo ci > nanmu cu bevri lo pipno" as "no lo ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno"! Just > because two things happen to be true does not mean that they are > saying the same thing!) > > > 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. > > Every quantifier affects the bridi in ways that other quantifiers > don't, otherwise they would be the same quantifier. > > "no ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o ..." and also equivalent to "ro ... > naku" > > "no" is not the only quantifier that contains a negation. "me'i", > "su'e" and "da'a" also do. > > "me'i PA ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o PA ...", and "su'e PA ..." > is equivalent to "naku za'u PA ..." > > "da'a PA ..." is equivalent to "PA ... naku" > > > I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feels > strange. > > I 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 th= e > > same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other) > > They are quite different, they have different meanings. I don't > understand why you say that I said that they were identical. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > 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. --0016e6542d986b274204a25303d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmm, I understood your following statement:
> No, because "no" contains a negation. If y= ou say "mi citka" you can't
> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Sim= ilarly, if
> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expe= ct anyone to understand that
> you mean "mi citka no lo plise&qu= ot;.

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">to mea= n that putting {no sumti} in a bridi effectively negates the selbri such th= at {mi citka no plise} =3D {mi na citka ??? plise}. =A0

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">And th= e general point that I was trying to make was that when we say that {lo} ha= s no default quantifiers what we've done is merely shifted the assumpti= on of what we're talking about to context.

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">Like y= ou said {lo broda} =3D {zo'e noi ke'a broda}. =A0I understand {zo&#= 39;e} as meaning "omitted sumti which you may or may not be able to pi= ck up on from context". =A0So if I see {mi viska zo'e} I would ass= ume something like {mi viska su'o zo'e}. =A0I certainly wouldn'= t assume {no} or something exotic (but grammatical) like {ka'o}. =A0If = {zo'e}=A0implicitly=A0forces a listener to make some assumptions then s= o too does {lo}

2011/5/2 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> mmm, good points. =A0I guess what I was getting at is, just because th= ere are
> no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use c= ontext to
> assume them. =A0(for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo= pipno})

No, I don't. If I assumed that each man carried the piano, then I=
would conclude that at least one of them carried it too. If I was
forced to assume anything, it would be that none of them carried it by
himself. (But please don't interpret that as saying that I read "l= o ci
nanmu cu bevri lo pipno" as "no lo ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno&quo= t;! Just
because two things happen to be true does not mean that they are
saying the same thing!)

> 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 quantifier of a su= mti can
> directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't.

Every quantifier affects the bridi in ways that other quantifiers
don't, otherwise they would be the same quantifier.

"no ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o ..." and also = equivalent to "ro ... naku"

"no" is not the only quantifier that contains a negation. "m= e'i",
"su'e" and "da'a" also do.

"me'i PA ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o PA ...&quo= t;, and "su'e PA ..."
is equivalent to "naku za'u PA ..."

"da'a PA ..." is equivalent to "PA ... naku"

> I understand intuitively why that is the case. =A0But it still feels s= trange.
> =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 t= he
> same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other)

They are quite different, they have different meanings. I don't understand why you say that I said that they were identical.

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+unsubscribe@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 "= 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.
--0016e6542d986b274204a25303d5--