From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARDCoqjxBBoEy6s1aQ@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 22 17:10:07 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QkPmv-0005nm-WC; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:10:06 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf3337733fxd.16 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=OUj6ZFDoLiIhHWUirEMUxvHpoIY9k2fZJ8Wa1zqwiIw=; b=GjXlzRjucJigbslpWO2QrCktwbv5GCWsAoX9tRTI0wrw3ZpgW504r/rRx0BhcJTQ9r 1mwWi2C+eMt2fgIMM4Wd4npSk6sRA9sFg5779VvJsV8+eASA9rgFqGJpGnx6pHsgj1z6 hCEy/uPiMiAlRczJvXZ01NpSv+vSrsiZZr2L8= Received: by 10.223.10.66 with SMTP id o2mr423924fao.1.1311379778505; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.11.11 with SMTP id r11ls1241704bkr.1.gmail; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.41.80 with SMTP id n16mr267362bke.23.1311379777078; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.41.80 with SMTP id n16mr267361bke.23.1311379777046; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com (mail-fx0-f52.google.com [209.85.161.52]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h17si1167481fac.1.2011.07.22.17.09.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.52; Received: by mail-fx0-f52.google.com with SMTP id 18so4933123fxd.39 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.64.66 with SMTP id d2mr2821905fai.116.1311379776853; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.93.203 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:09:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:09:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaning of multiple negations From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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=0015174764b4c3d53b04a8b16501 --0015174764b4c3d53b04a8b16501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If we're at the point where we're talking in terms of using tu'e tu'u to fi= x a situation, then something is seriously weird. Still, what you did a few posts down works better I suppose, although it is honestly a bit overcomplicated for practical use (like, grokking that so you don't have to actually sit there and grind it out to figure out what happened is pretty painful). Whose idea was it for \forall to be PA KOhA and for \exists to be KOhA, both without any variation that doesn't need such a thing, anyway? I find it leads to issues not just here but in the whole "da doesn't have referents" issue, since its grammar and even to some extent its idiomatic gloss makes it "seem" like it should have referents. mu'o mi'e latros 2011/7/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: > > Indefinite descriptions shouldn't reduce to {da} constructs, I'm fairly > > sure; they should reduce to {lo} constructs. > > I disagree, but as you say it's not relevant here. > > > Regardless, beginning here: > > su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki > > You can indeed reduce it to what you had, > > Good. > > > but that also reduces just as well > > to: > > su'o da poi prenu goi ko'a cu ricfu .ije ko'a na gleki > > No, it doesn't. What is the value assigned to "ko'a" in that first > bridi? Is it any one person, some person who is rich, some person who > is both rich and not happy, or something else? Can the assignment of > a value or values to ko'a depend on the second bridi? Attaching "goi > ko'a" to something that doesn't have referents (i.e. a quantifier > expression) is somewhat strange, because "goi ko'a" is meant to assign > some referent(s) to ko'a. > > > in which case the bridi with the gleki gives {na} full bridi scope. The > > bridi tail connectives and forethought connectives all do this, pe'i ca= 'e > > ru'e. The assignment is subtle, however, I agree; I'm thinking of it as > > being purely syntactic, since I don't know how to quantify a prenex ove= r > > several jufra. > > To use a prenex that is common to several sentences you can use > "prenex tu'e sentence .i sentence .i sentence ... tu'u", but how does > that help with the ko'a assignment? > > If by "purely syntactic" you mean that "ko'a" is standing for the > expression "su'o da poi prenu" (which I don't think it can) then it > still doesn't work, because "su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu .ije su'o da > poi prenu na gleki" doesn't have the desired meaning under any scope > rule for "na". > > 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. --0015174764b4c3d53b04a8b16501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If we're at the point where we're talking in terms of using tu'= e tu'u to fix a situation, then something is seriously weird. Still, wh= at you did a few posts down works better I suppose, although it is honestly= a bit overcomplicated for practical use (like, grokking that so you don= 9;t have to actually sit there and grind it out to figure out what happened= is pretty painful). Whose idea was it for \forall to be PA KOhA and for \e= xists to be KOhA, both without any variation that doesn't need such a t= hing, anyway? I find it leads to issues not just here but in the whole &quo= t;da doesn't have referents" issue, since its grammar and even to = some extent its idiomatic gloss makes it "seem" like it should ha= ve referents.

mu'o mi'e latros

2011/7/22 Jo= rge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote: > Indefinite descriptions shouldn't reduce to {da} constructs, I'= ;m fairly
> sure; they should reduce to {lo} constructs.

I disagree, but as you say it's not relevant here.

> Regardless, beginning here:
> su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki
> You can indeed reduce it to what you had,

Good.

> but that also reduces just as well
> to:
> su'o da poi prenu goi ko'a cu ricfu .ije ko'a na gleki

No, it doesn't. What is the value assigned to "ko'a"= ; in that first
bridi? Is it any one person, some person who is rich, some person who
is both rich and not happy, or something else? =A0Can the assignment of
a value or values to ko'a depend on the second bridi? Attaching "g= oi
ko'a" to something that doesn't have referents (i.e. a quantif= ier
expression) is somewhat strange, because "goi ko'a" is meant = to assign
some referent(s) to ko'a.

> in which case the bridi with the gleki gives {na} full bridi scope. Th= e
> bridi tail connectives and forethought connectives all do this, pe'= ;i ca'e
> ru'e. The assignment is subtle, however, I agree; I'm thinking= of it as
> being purely syntactic, since I don't know how to quantify a prene= x over
> several jufra.

To use a prenex that is common to several sentences you can use
"prenex tu'e sentence .i sentence .i sentence ... tu'u", = but how does
that help with the ko'a assignment?

If by "purely syntactic" you mean that "ko'a" is st= anding for the
expression "su'o da poi prenu" (which I don't think it ca= n) then it
still doesn't work, because "su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu .ije s= u'o da
poi prenu na gleki" doesn't have the desired meaning under any sco= pe
rule for "na".

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.
--0015174764b4c3d53b04a8b16501--