From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCH3MjyBBoEqkvhZA@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 22 03:23:26 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QvRez-0003sR-SB; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:24 -0700 Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6sf8479420ywa.16 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:06 -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:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key:x-pgp-keyid: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 :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gb1mNVjLdNvLllSSno41u4+a8zZzWhNYmFAe+RRoymM=; b=YHrZ2CYJYM+EvfB2mFwZJbGYJG/y3ezDPUvJVYAcj8V45/0w1xXPDPxcSEI/klv5Ue enRL8MnaUWyx5p8HLIXTgHLzBTkST0LAeWtCs8bsKc0VObTd2EZeyLu0n0PjUglXkMOx NXoKY4iHNm2TvYFlHbZG6AFxgZcfVBN830wMM= Received: by 10.236.190.193 with SMTP id e41mr1661725yhn.4.1314008583943; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.224.87 with SMTP id in23ls4453485ibb.7.gmail; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.151.197 with SMTP id f5mr3173649icw.31.1314008582992; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.151.197 with SMTP id f5mr3173648icw.31.1314008582980; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll18si16120985pbb.0.2011.08.22.03.23.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:23:01 -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 sdf.org (mbays@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7MAN1hx004944 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:23:01 GMT Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.org (8.14.4/8.12.8/Submit) id p7MAN1fP010358 for lojban@googlegroups.com; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:23:01 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:23:01 +0000 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110822102301.GA24775@SDF.ORG> References: <20110817114634.GE6674@gonzales> <1313593494.36002.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110819002533.GG6674@gonzales> <20110819100840.GA27065@SDF.ORG> <20110820105209.GD25668@SDF.ORG> <20110820195330.GB19624@SDF.ORG> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Saturday, 2011-08-20 at 18:06 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > * Saturday, 2011-08-20 at 11:39 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > >> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > >> > So in {lo broda ro ri brode}, {ri} > >> > would have to carry as information not only what Whole {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. > > > > How would that work, sorry? > > > > Having it in the sumti seems coherent, and I'm starting to think it > > might even be usable (and barely diverge from current usage and > > prescription). >=20 > (Do you want "lo broda zo'u ro ri brode"? Otherwise "ro ri" goes in > the x2 of "brode".) (I know, but it still works as an example) > I think we should be able to say "lo broda zo'u ro ri poi brodi cu > brode" where "brodi" dismembers the broda-atoms into brodi-atoms. >=20 > To be more concrete: >=20 > lo bevri be lo jubme zo'u re ri cu verba > "The carriers of table(s): two of them are children." >=20 > should not imply that two whole teams of table carriers are children, > but is more likely just saying that two people among the table > carriers are children.. >=20 > This is basically saying that "lo broda" is "zo'e noi ke'a broda", and > not "zo'e noi ro ke'a broda". Hmm. These are tempting semantics, but I don't see how to formalise them nicely. We seem to want that a simple sumti, like {lo broda} or {ko'a}, should have interpretation a Whole, which I'll denote [lo broda] resp. [ko'a]. Then you'd have that {re ko'a broda} means that in the set of wholes { X partof [ko'a] | broda(X) } , there are precisely two minimal elements? That seems reasonable; but it doesn't explain {ro ko'a broda}. How, without invoking absolute atoms, can you give a meaning to {ro ko'a broda} based only on the Whole [ko'a] and on the meaning of {broda}? If broda is brodi-distributive (and brodi is considered somehow canonical in this respect), you could have {ro ko'a broda} mean that all brodi-atoms below [ko'a] satisfy broda. But what then about highly non-distributive predicates like S(X) :=3D {X sruri ko'e}? In general, we can't expect to have anything better than S being S-distributive. So following the same rule, {ro ko'a sruri ko'e} would mean that every S-atom below ko'a satisfies S, which is an uninformative tautology. I also don't see how to formalise your atomising poi. > >> > {re lo bevri be su'o jubme cu ci mei .i pa ra verba} > > > > Let me give in painful detail the meaning I meant to give the lojban, > > and how I derive it: > > > > The interpretation of {lo bevri be su'o jubme} has data (B,P) where B > > is the Whole of the people carrying the tables, and P is the predicate > > =A0P(x) :=3D=3D (x carries >=3D1 table) ; > > the P is recorded to indicate that when the sumti is quantified, the > > quantification is over those P-atoms which are parts of B. > > > > By definition of B and P, a P-atom below B is precisely the Whole > > which carries one of the tables. So the P-atoms below B are in > > bijection with the tables. >=20 > (Not really very relevant to your point, but why a bijection? Some of > the Wholes could carry more than one table, and perhaps some of the > tables were carried more than once, and maybe some tables were not > carried at all.) (sure; the setup was meant to be the simplest one, in which we do get a bijection) > > Now {ri} also has data (B,P). So {pa ri verba} means that exactly one > > of the P-atoms below B satisfies {verba}. Since {verba} is > > x1-distributive wrt people, this claims that all of the people who are > > part of this P-atom are children - i.e. that all of the carriers of > > the corresponding table are children. There may or may not be three of > > them. >=20 > I don't like the idea of pronouns carrying more info than B. The > reason is that some Wholes are more natural than others, and having to > keep track of unnatural Wholes is... well, unnatural. I agree. But as discussed above, I don't see how to get this working without using global atoms. (From which I would conclude that using global atoms is the right thing to do) > >> 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. > > > > Maybe so (although I can't actually think of an example). >=20 > Suppose two people carry two (smallish) tables in the same action. It > makes no more sense to say that the carrying is distributed over the > tables than to say it is distributed over the people. OK. I expect there would be disagreement in this case as to whether it distributes over the tables. Probably in lots of other cases too. > >> 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. > > > > Well... technically it is part of the meaning, if we accept that the > > meaning of a predicate includes the information as to when it is true > > of given arguments. >=20 > Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that the same word (say "bevri") > can be used to represent (slightly) different predicates in different > contexts, the slight difference being in this case its > distributiveness type over its arguments. Hmm. I'd be happier making the simplifying assumption when theorising about the language that the meaning of a predicate is immutable and consists of (in the first approximation) a Boolean truth function on tuples of Wholes... but I agree that that's a theoretical abstraction which would likely be ignored by actual language users. > >> (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.) > > > > Agreed, although hints like "usually distributive over foos" could be > > helpful when indicating meaning. >=20 > I suppose that's the kind of information that is meant to be given by > the "(mass)" comments in the gi'uste. Specifically indicating non-distributivity? Yes. 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.