From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCqpLruBBoEjFAF9g@googlegroups.com Sat May 14 07:31:21 2011 Received: from mail-px0-f184.google.com ([209.85.212.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QLFsB-0007uq-Qa; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:21 -0700 Received: by pxi4 with SMTP id 4sf3430300pxi.1 for ; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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=50Hlu4r/ZjAWaUNrVijD9+57y+BKWJ0sbzu17z7dMDQ=; b=XZ7T/d1QhYixuZ/HVESRyBwEaOw3oAv/zakAKEy592WzdLU+8nDbWqWo7diZt/1Xnl RVw5y7HKcvQQ3EU0UQEMK26TDaOxH+2vgGoVkGZ1o5sNYYxhEXDwU1VEGco/ATHNYQbg SnQtBxqNeexc6Ub3amlO8UQ1BywMJET46SdYw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=sK9brnCSy3rFhK65IoYs18OgsUS9sD3f7PEBFChcSCdSfZZ87/6jJqD2wLRnyZVpnT nVj6aKlVcwIyPvBrju9AHXwBR5aD43b7F6JPGPiyBKRH14/WIkHKQIlI0epvaBTT2U3P pH8ZVAtryDzoqAxFb3TMZ+UYrevY5kkffiAMI= Received: by 10.68.24.226 with SMTP id x2mr191185pbf.33.1305383466611; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.39.41 with SMTP id m9ls4597777pbk.2.gmail; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.12.40 with SMTP id v8mr440907pbb.19.1305383465771; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.12.40 with SMTP id v8mr440906pbb.19.1305383465758; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm24.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm24.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.151]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id z6si1328104pbc.8.2011.05.14.07.31.05; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.44.151 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.44.151; Received: from [98.139.44.99] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 14:31:05 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.81] by tm4.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 14:31:05 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1018.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 May 2011 14:31:05 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 482900.76665.bm@omp1018.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 67786 invoked by uid 60001); 14 May 2011 14:31:05 -0000 Message-ID: <977775.67003.qm@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: mXb0bSQVM1kw0D3XQ6d2IFd_fkvuaSgKLf6cmNIRLvq2T8S 5nn7V.AdrVWkowu8wDftVkIEdvusdmdFNc4Lza1QKz8TVrDTvpesQA19E5Kh 73t9h7Ihvp2g2uRZ4WrhbKN.dvhWxtgp6a6k5fvo5YXwLQJ3aCPLsucm37gs ZSFywJV2YTk24q8CNQjUtDVUZ9pezitvuvwQ3n_ssEHPKR0BKEllNv_unu7v nIfuaQShzTumpGmglIPg6ac02fYlaKDIko2KhhjYb8ybWYmrXr0Qr1k0tAtb Bn29huhMSKYmR4MuHfamCfeOYA81ZDT_GOFgpWy5_.f0Z_RFbCEvrhOQdbX4 8D236D9aPtqaNi9laZfx.rG_bf9X8hoD.azG7zlDkr1tW.CPwCzJMMsmhTdG zp8wnY2THTkeGaB.YxKProkvwykXo0PVYCY4lqrk8XHtjAYtBB3Qdvx2ou9G jCgrGfrtH3a7yIb1a_JYDoqn5GtWiWvy2TFcYyKRA9w-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:04 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.44.151 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Well, not exactly. The identity of {lo gerku} and {da poi gerku} is certainly not absolute, as the later cases under quantifiers show. {ci lo gerku} means something more (or less) than {ci da poi gerku}; the latter says that there are exactly three things that are dogs, the former that three out of some (otherwise identified) dogs. Put simply, {lo gerku} is a name-like expressions, with a fixed reference, {da poi gerku} is a quantifier-and-variable, so without a referent but only a function in the sentence, an incomplete expression in a way the first is not. The expansions given for {lo PA gerku} are a little misleading: nothing is both a dog and a PA-ad in a unified sense. If we take it that {lo PA gerku} is refers to dogs, as it does, then the dogs referred to form a PA-ad. If we take it that (lo PA gerku) refers to a PA-ad, then it is composed of dogs. That is, to make sense of this, we have to think of PA-ads not as a sort of thing, but as an accounting of things, perhaps {gerku PAmei} makes better sense that the conjunctive predicate. Assuming that {-mei} is no longer to be interpreted as a C-set, then there are no nomei and so no meaningful {lo no broda}, although both {no da gerku} and {no lo gerku} make perfectly good sense. Consequently, "all of the trained assassins", if taken as a case of {ro lo broda} excludes the case where there are no trained assassins, since the use of {lo broda} guarantees that there is at least one (in the universe of discourse, of course, not necessarily among the things that actually exist). On the other hand, it is a still-disputed question whether {ro da poi broda} is compatible with there being no brodas (Lojban seems to say yes, Logic generally says no at the basic level, but has a complex level which allows it: taking {ro da poi broda} to mean {ro da ganai da broda gi}). Of course, grounding the expression in physical reality ("in my pocket" say) does take you from the conceptual to the existent, at least in ordinary understanding (but it really depends on how you group things: is it {lo dollars} or {lo dollars in my pocket}?). ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 5:56:57 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" On 13 May 2011 16:44, Michael Turniansky wrote: > Look, I have to agree with Jonathan. This discussion has gone on quite > too long. We disagree. That's it. You believe that lo implies there have > to be za'uno elements, I don't. You disagree with me without addressing the logical problem on your part that I intended to point out. lo gerku = da poi gerku ci lo gerku = ci da poi gerku no lo gerku = no da poi gerku lo ci gerku = da poi gerku je cimei lo no gerku = da poi gerku je nomei Every sentence is syntactically valid, but the last one is logically questionable. You are yet to explain how exactly one could sensibly mean to refer to something which are both dogs and no dogs without a contradiction. Or: If you don't think that "lo no gerku" means "da poi gerku je nomei", please explain why. I doubt it's just a matter of subjective opinions; there should be some logical basis upon which our current disagreement can be resolved. I moved this discussion on to lojban@ for a reason. We should be clear about this now, so as to not repeat the same confusing argumentation in the eyes of newbies. > 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. And the universe of discourse isn't constrained by the physical reality; it's entirely possible for you to refer to objects or events which don't manifest in the physical world. That's how "I'll give you all the dollars in my pocket if you clean your room" too works; that you won't actually give the dollars in your pocket doesn't destroy the linguistic reference you make to "the dollars" in your utterance. > You've stated your case. I've stated mine. As far as I can tell, we both > understand each other's POV. My problem with your arguing up to this point > has simply been you've been trying to tell me what what *I've* "intended" to > say, and that's what I object to. Is quantification in Lojban not meant to be unambiguous when made explicit? I've been trying to tell you what your zero-quantification may represent in accordance with the jbocre considerations given to the gadri, namely BPFK's xorlo. mu'o -- 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. -- 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.