From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBD92vjtBBoEHXA9lA@googlegroups.com Sun May 01 21:05:33 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QGkO0-0004wT-AW; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:33 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf9215264wya.16 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:21 -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=9OSVVuLrsvXjPKMJCLkgQpZPAW299DHpbeZEf+fgehQ=; b=rQOwuFVI7z499BrIvSmeTPedbY/g5OQZmkhsHcWdwtCbCMotA9Y0bimZLjrtxGI+kn GwQAKnOxCGTzVWMr+K8psOZ5A2/ntppan0EAwLBRmnqp8OpPp65jJtkrc4l3jHJip3VM XVcrqDEwngeT/UgVS0GamtlnDrXvW9Vgzy+hE= 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=HUWpvNjTkqIvejnqjE+FBOBvLdEaQsE0sYYNq+v7V4kxkJFViA2JHtA9Ps5FNewK4U 4v0ltiDicbdBO15Ad0a+jdjcQl/Yen9s83TRO3Mq6KIPrhSjDo8A4u4uTYrI4DW5DNUI 39zHrE53H2Fv6TUPFKjCRCBs2s890KdbpgU08= Received: by 10.216.78.133 with SMTP id g5mr529511wee.19.1304309117736; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.11.92 with SMTP id 68ls387306eew.4.gmail; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.17.88 with SMTP id i64mr559524eei.21.1304309116598; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.17.88 with SMTP id i64mr559523eei.21.1304309116573; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f45.google.com (mail-ew0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a55si1111895eek.1.2011.05.01.21.05.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.45; Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so1901394ewy.4 for ; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.134 with SMTP id g6mr2901383eec.6.1304309116353; Sun, 01 May 2011 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.29.4 with HTTP; Sun, 1 May 2011 21:04:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Luke Bergen Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 00:04:56 -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 209.85.215.45 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=000e0cdff82a8ebb7004a243216d --000e0cdff82a8ebb7004a243216d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 context to assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno}= ) 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 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 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 (implicit > or > > explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context tha= t > 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 t= he > > 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 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 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 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 th= e > > grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojban > 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 > "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. --000e0cdff82a8ebb7004a243216d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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+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.
--000e0cdff82a8ebb7004a243216d--