From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCava_yBBoEBCbOTA@googlegroups.com Wed Aug 17 08:30:49 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qti4r-0000rf-4r; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:48 -0700 Received: by gyc15 with SMTP id 15sf1709552gyc.16 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kvyf9+JwuIhKHuyuno1fa5IXvyEqnzzfOuJccykzkQA=; b=wI9L6XSyC02DmZf3ApdM74Lo2PEfcZZrR9i5tj/59axbm/SvdbfqoRJj67h/B+8Uvc UtfPuR4v+wVHFJTG/+TFCRfz5ylmtmjUzHsCsbJiMKssR7+Sk7mCnLAZjEXs8jQNSdRA 1xJJuuO9A6t0PtOHMpVde/My+hDsLspk+YEkY= Received: by 10.90.10.38 with SMTP id 38mr225015agj.31.1313595034915; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.143.210 with SMTP id w18ls809692ibu.5.gmail; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.125.164 with SMTP id z24mr2798332yhh.4.1313595033502; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.125.164 with SMTP id z24mr2798331yhh.4.1313595033491; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm17-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm17-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.21]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id z61si878229yhn.6.2011.08.17.08.30.32; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.21; Received: from [66.94.237.198] by nm17.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2011 15:30:32 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.103] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2011 15:30:32 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1008.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Aug 2011 15:30:32 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 158299.34256.bm@omp1008.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 32687 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Aug 2011 15:30:12 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: kO340RAVM1mDZaZ.lKnH8o_j12G0w7H9RCJ2d0UMh5M2XR. sL_MnxZnTo4yJ3cQtzY7nUvtKzpI3TAn_OLc620mFL4dKe_dox0T5TXztIlp u0TQts3MtJ3pzPfXL6vSwoE7rvqAYtOLnymSZ12GMEzhxH2qqK_IfuQuuzeY wpjLDUsb5Csebn4LnC9_h6EaMCoxz5ZYxJUgFTxzeLb7l48U55_pOK4zy1ZQ xngMr3uRHy0tt7ThBEDyapoLlyOSIZlkl5VxffEBUlOFOu5Ri.LXWHJxzi81 xNNKX4f5cWlDFnbd4SjSRwIxEtSsD1_tziPZXLKcwTcvaTV8_IGK10al72eH YMnBE2.O2ZUtbalURARvrTIh_g9z.qIeu9HzrIMj2dWb1ErKA.RGJ34rmApq RmoHQwECqQYvqb.wnJrNkkHIn09iPWhKCes4lCFnMBA0HvbLjv1MKLiJAcvb 0iyY- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:12 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.313619 References: <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> <20110814165654.GA14318@gonzales> <20110816125216.GB10697@gonzales> <20110817140357.GF6674@gonzales> Message-ID: <1313595012.95873.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20110817140357.GF6674@gonzales> 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 66.94.236.21 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The mongrel system now (after a while with xorlo -- as I understand it) jus= t=20 looks hopelessly messy. Like the old Logjam, but with some (largely unreal= ized)=20 attempts to get around the problems (in semantics mainly) that that system= =20 produced. In my xorlo, terms and quantifiers all assume plurality, with=20 singularity as a limit case. In addition, predication is normally collecti= ve,=20 with individual as a limit case. These are just moves in the logic. Now, w= hen=20 we come to the language, we find some special differences. 1) predicates c= an be=20 sorted as to what sort of ivity they use, collective, distributive, or eith= er=20 (possibly subdivided by contexts) 2) the assumed ivity can be overridden by= a=20 descriptor or decriptor-involving expression, either to distributivity or t= o an=20 indefinite position (so far; mayhap a definitive collective will come along= . I=20 still like 'loi' except for all the "mass" crap it has picked over 55 year= s or=20 so). The problems with the mongrel system include (but are not limited to) the n= eed=20 to interject a move between the term and the referent used to evaluate the= =20 sentence and the (always admitted as such) ad hoc way of reducing pluraliti= es to=20 unities. It's much easier to make singular quantification out of plural, t= han=20 conversely. There does remain the problem of indicating whether predicatio= n is=20 collective or distributive, given that the argument referent is plural and = the=20 issue cannot be decided by the semantics of the predicate. But, of course,= the=20 same problem arises in the mongrel system, where it is unclear whether the = set=20 or the members of the set have the property in question (we'd have to rewri= te a=20 lot of semantics to cover the cases, in addition). ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, August 17, 2011 9:03:57 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses * Tuesday, 2011-08-16 at 20:22 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > Or do you want to say that it *doesn't* follow that those neurons > > collectively {besna}, because the semantics of besna are such that only > > individual brains satisfy {besna}? And generally that plural predicatio= n > > is reserved for a few special predicates like {sruri}? That might make > > the ambiguities more manageable. >=20 > Yes, that's what I think. Some predicates require collective > predication, some require distributive predication, and some are happy > with both. That's part of the meaning of each predicate. It may be > more a matter of having an affinity for a certain type of predication > rather than an absolute requirement. Perhaps in some context it may > make sense to say that some neurons are a brain. >=20 > >> then I don't see much of a problem in using "lo go'i", i.e. > >> "lo besna", to refer to the same things that "lo so'i nirna" refers > >> to. > > > > But what are the referents of {lo besna}? Brains, or neurons? >=20 > The referent of "lo besna" is always brains, and in addition, whenever > neurons are brains, brains are neurons, so in that case, the referents > of "lo besna" are also neurons. >=20 > > If you > > leave it ambiguous, won't this cause confusion? e.g. how would you > > translate "these brains are conscious" without being misunderstood as > > claiming that each of their constituent neurons are? >=20 > This particular example doesn't seem like it would ever cause > confusion, but in general I suppose you would have to go with > something like "ti noi ro ke'a besna cu sanji" if you need that kind > of precision. The only way to make sure your predicate appplies > distributively is through a quantifier. OK. Given the clarifications above to the effect that plural predication should be limited and fairly rare, I think I can see this working - and generally the ambiguity in allowing collective satisfaction in {lo broda} being acceptable. > > So how do you see collective predication and groups-as-individuals > > interacting? >=20 > I would say predicate-logic-Lojban (whenever quantifiers get involved) > has a preference for groups-as-individuals, while ordinary > conversation Lojban has a preference for collective predication. > Lojban is weird because it doesn't have plural quantifiers, which are > really needed for logically handling collective predication, and it > doesn't have singular variables, other than "da", "de", "di". So it's > a strange mix. Yes. But if we accept the rule discussed below that if G is the group whose set of constituents is equal to set of referents of {ko'a} then the individual G satisfies broda iff {ko'a broda} holds, and accept that such groups are individuals in our universe, then singular quantification would effectively include plural quantification... If for some ko'a it holds that {ko'a sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, then {da sruri le dinju gi'e krixa} would hold, and things like {ro da poi casnu cu tavla} would make sense. Whether it's actually a good idea to allow such things, I'm not so sure. > >> > A group is a kind of individual, so a possible referent of a sumti-6= . > >> > >> Certainly, for example a referent of "lo girzu". > >> > >> > A group has as data a set of individuals - its constituents. > >> > >> OK. > > > > If you agree that this is all the data in a group, then {girzu} is > > maybe not a good word to use... how about {zilgri}, defined to kill the > > x2 and x4 places of {girzu}? >=20 > Why not "gunma"? The difference could be only that zilgri takes a set in x2 rather than a plural. > I didn't mean to say "lo girzu" is the most general kind of group, > just an example of an individual that also happens to be a group. I > could have used "lo bende", or "lo lanzu". I think "lo gunma" should > be the most general case. >=20 > >> >Things "collectively broda" iff the group whose constituents are > >> >those things brodas. > >> > >> I'm not sure this will always hold. Do we need it for something? > > > > Elegance? >=20 > OK, I can't think of any serious objection. Similarly - although as noted above, admitting such groups does have some serious consequences. > Even things like "lo ci prenu cu pa mei" can be read collectively (as > in "lo ci prenu cu pa mei lo bende"). What are you getting at here, sorry? Martin --=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.