From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC7jr_yBBoEM048fA@googlegroups.com Sat Aug 20 07:40:11 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QumiT-0007kd-Fv; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:40:11 -0700 Received: by vxh2 with SMTP id 2sf4723489vxh.16 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:58 -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=kt1thiWTOluJiFadukjQTX9VGpcc6Qbcj6Q9yaw3cj4=; b=jmBzaFvxR9pXljIFTkkwj11x3cEkyv/ygCby+iq7iX/3ub5gmvBZpoYbidtxK/M6tZ y9QIgUootHqlrhlELB2wBHNefBNGlMvxm9vXRJ15CSuhf3FuOIWK9HINHt6C9g1XoGM3 xSBEZhosYsu/0RCKBtsYB2hmcU/BX+H7OZMAY= Received: by 10.220.52.133 with SMTP id i5mr83655vcg.59.1313851195368; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.24.163 with SMTP id v3ls7014849vdf.3.gmail; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.69.113 with SMTP id d17mr340480vdu.18.1313851194793; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.69.113 with SMTP id d17mr340479vdu.18.1313851194786; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t2si11626976vdv.2.2011.08.20.07.39.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.54; Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so3996012vws.41 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.156.13 with SMTP id wa13mr518027vdb.165.1313851194640; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.101.170 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110820105209.GD25668@SDF.ORG> References: <1313511086.45473.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110817114634.GE6674@gonzales> <1313593494.36002.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110819002533.GG6674@gonzales> <20110819100840.GA27065@SDF.ORG> <20110820105209.GD25668@SDF.ORG> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:39:54 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > One issue with this approach, though (and maybe this is what you > meant, actually?) is that quantification only makes sense when we have > an idea of what atoms are relevant. So in {lo broda ro ri brode}, {ri} > would have to carry as information not only what Whole which {lo > broda} refers to, but also that quantification of it is to be taken > with respect to broda-atoms. What I meant was that it is "brode", not "ri", that needs to carry that information. > That's conceptually slightly ugly, and I don't know how intuitive it > would be. > > (Example of use: in the context of people carrying tables, > {re lo bevri be su'o jubme cu ci mei .i pa ra verba} > would mean that two of the tables are being carried by threesomes, and > one of the tables is being carried by a group which consists entirely > of children. I'm not sure I see that that follows. "ra" should have the same referents as "lo bevri be su'o jubme". The natural distribution of "verba" is over people, so I would interpret "pa ra verba" as saying that one of the carriers of tables is a child, with no information as to whether the child is in one of the two threesomes. But that's only assuming the most natural distribution of "verba". You are assuming that from the context the natural distribution shifts from prenu to "cimei [be lo prenu]", and further that the referents of "ra" are not the same referents of "lo bevri be su'o jubme" but those of "lo bevri be su'o jubme be'o poi ci mei [be lo prenu]". > Assuming {bevri} is distributive in x2 with respect to tables, {lo > prenu cu bevri lo jubme} would accurately describe the situation, and > {ro lo prenu cu bevri lo jubme} would be false.) Right, but it is not a general property of "bevri" that it is distributive in x2 with respect to tables. In some other context we may need that it not fully distribute with respect to tables. What I was getting at is that it is not generally part of the meaning of a predicate how it distributes in any of its arguments with respect to other predicates, although in a lot of cases there is an obvious natural choice. (We could try to define predicates in such a way that how they distribute with respect to other predicates is always determined, but I don't think it would work from a practical usage point of view.) 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=en.