From lojban+bncCAAQ-aak8gQaBHQ4Mbc@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 15 05:39:35 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QswS3-0005cY-VK; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:34 -0700 Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6sf6567050ywa.16 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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; bh=q0n9AfnIUH1TlB8DoKPdbacvX/tXmIrTMX4dVKQ2JjI=; b=JdjCj0G1ZFJ/yU0TEi2EnH01nUvrapaQII3+/FzirziQN+oSRdKKXQnOII5ZJ/I+u+ Nb1BtQBCx/r9IgWa7wJXhE3ZE9Bj/KE3XZvOzouW5OigLMq3C7DKV1ciJ6XHDyOwhuKz PWG2RB2hwHilY/XEXVUaVZUsOma0bQu3jJOMY= Received: by 10.150.95.17 with SMTP id s17mr85993ybb.15.1313411961789; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.250.3 with SMTP id x3ls19576161agh.2.gmail; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.232 with SMTP id p68mr9475765yhl.1.1313411960383; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.138.5 with SMTP id q5msybn; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.127.11 with SMTP id g11mr3437012ics.34.1313341017082; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.127.11 with SMTP id g11mr3437011ics.34.1313341017070; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll18si562678pbb.0.2011.08.14.09.56.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7EGusnk011132 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:56:55 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Qsdza-0007Hb-FJ for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:56:54 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:56:54 +0200 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110814165654.GA14318@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: nanba User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org 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: , --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 15:02 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > OK. I would like to semi-formalise this understanding as follows: > > > > The interpretation of a sumti (or more accurately: a sumti-6) consists > > of a set of referents and a distributivity flag. The distributivity flag > > has three settings: Distributive, Collective, and Ambiguous. When used > > in a bridi, the bridi is respectively claimed of each referent, or of > > the referents as a gunma, or ambiguously between the two options. > > {lo broda} and {loi broda} both return Sumti6 whose referents each > > satisfy broda; the difference is just that the flag is set to Ambiguous > > in the first and Collective in the second. lu'a and lu'o reset the flag, > > but have no other effect. When quantifying (non-fractionally) over > > a sumti, the flag is ignored. > > > > Does this accurately capture the intention of xorlo? >=20 > Not really. xorlo is about "lo", it has absolutely nothing to say > about "loi" or about masses. Fair enough. I was using 'xorlo' as shorthand for 'the bpfk gadri proposal'. But it seems that the definition there of {lo} *does* interact with masses/groups, because its referents are explicitly allowed to be groups. > An ordinary sumti-6 has referents, and that's all it has. The ordinary > sumti-6 says absolutely nothing about how its referents will > distribute when used as the argument of a predicate. Ordinary sumti-6 > are things like "ta", "mi'o", "lo gerku", "la djan", "li ze", "lo ka > ce'u barda", "zo bu'u", "lu mi klama lo zarci li'u", "lo'i manti", and > so on. (Sadly there are also extraordinary sumti-6, such as {lu'o mi .a do}... but I guess this is what you mean to exclude with 'ordinary'.) > There is no consensus on what a sumti-6 headed by "loi" does, since > some people think it doesn't just have referents, but it also says how > its referents play in a sentence when the sumti is used as the > argument of a predicate. That to me seems like too much to ask of a > gadri, since there are so many possibilities of how they could > distribute: one by one, all together, in pairs, in twos and threes, > some individually and others in pairs, and so on. Having a special > gadri for the "all together" case seems to me like the wrong way to go > about it, but it's a popular description of "loi" (yet not the only > one). >=20 > In the particular case of sumti-6 of form "lo broda", we know of its > referents that they broda. It is probably not required that they broda > one by one, they may broda together, but this is an open question. The > point of xorlo was mainly about removing any implication of how or > whether the referents will distribute when used as an argument, not > about how they broda. My feeling is that the level-mixing ambiguity which allowing group satisfaction of broda in {lo broda} would introduce - {lo besna} could have its referents being neurons, and generally {lo gunma be lo broda}, with {gunma} as per your definition below, could have its referents brodaing - would be an ambiguity too far. Disallowing it does make getting at the individuals which collectively broda more difficult - {ro lo selgunma be lo sruri be lo dinju cu krixa} wouldn't be too bad, but see below where I argue that this use of gunma is too ambiguous. For what it's worth, my understanding of CLL was always that group satisfaction was disallowed - though probably it wasn't stated explicitly. > As for the meaning of the gismu "gunma", my take is that it means "x1 > consists of x2" or equivalently "x2 constitute x1". x1 is a whole and > x2 are its constituents. (Note: "x2 are *the* constituents of x1", not > "x2 is/are among the constituents of x1", which is a different > predicate.) And more generally, would you drop CLL's upwards closure axiom for "masses", such that you can't have {lo plise} having as referent a group whose constituents are an apple and a badger? However, I don't think that it is so useful to have the 'constituent' relation as an ordinary selbri. A magic cmavo might be better. Consider : we would always have {ko'a gunma ko'a}, where we interpret collectively on both sides. Similarly, the referents of {lo selgunma be lo sruri} could be the individuals which as groups sruri, but they could also be the sruris themselves - depending on whether {lo sruri} is taken to sumti distributively or collectively. > Thus if "loi broda" does mean "lo gunma be lo broda" then "loi broda" > is an ordinary sumti-6, and its referent then does not necessarily > broda but rather the constituents of the referent are the ones that > broda. (In this case "loi broda" will typically have a single > referent, just like "lo'i broda" will typically have a single > referent.) This seems very sensible.=20 > But nothing of this is stipulated by xorlo, which is about > "lo", not about "loi" nor about the semantics of "gunma". I rather > keep that can of worms separate from "lo". I understand that (and I note that your .alis never uses {loi}/{lei}),=20 but these issues do need to be settled sometime. And if you want arbitrary sumtis to be able to sumti collectively, then getting a good theory of collectivity is necessary even to understand {mi}, nevermind {loi}. So allow me to recap how I would like to understand all this: The data in the interpretation of an ordinary sumti-6 is just a set of individuals, its referents. When it sumtis, whether it does so distributively or collectively is ambiguous. {lu'a} and {lu'o} can be used to disambiguate (forming extraordinary sumti-6). Non-fractional quantification unambiguously quantifies over the referents. The referents of {lo broda} are such that ONE OF (currently unsettled) (i) each referent satisfies broda, i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda} is tautologous. (ii) the referents either each satisfy broda, or they collectively do, i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda .ija lu'o ri cu broda} This constitutes the definition of {lo broda}, i.e. no further information about the referents can be deduced (modulo usual assumptions of contextual relevance). A group is a kind of individual, so a possible referent of a sumti-6. A group has as data a set of individuals - its constituents. Things "collectively broda" iff the group whose constituents are those things brodas. (I think John Cowan would want to disagree here, and say in particular that the group with only one constituent should not be distinguished =66rom that individual. Is that right, John? But this seems not to fit with your doi xorxes account of loi.) The exact semantics of when a group brodas depends on broda. Perhaps the x1 of sruri is upwards closed, but the x1 of plise certainly isn't. In what ways is that summary inaccurate? Yours, Martin --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5H/lYACgkQULC7OLX7LNYOEwCfYBiCvBJxhbfQQHjz/s9s3tJp lGkAoOP3mYZxoVMkmMVuybwKiZM4L0ox =FmtJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK--