From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDH7tXyBBoE_3WFyg@googlegroups.com Wed Aug 24 15:12:38 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QwLgX-0008OB-G5; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:38 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf2523622fxd.16 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:25 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yCswYOaajEZjRIGrwwudwPL7hmEPsBq4EPXpqQn6eG8=; b=5tIhR9MFzVLP812kAN2afLnj/mcCGGsszKE6WpXyV0fSBWzT67psLJ1l9QM2MHzQJB VJ08g4+flRENA0cs6+u620jJbs6IySKKXsJcfG4kAfDpih0N1grmiP325PaJYJ8WxEMZ PZJRw9qZ7WM6NRzxIc9L0U7t+Y34jmfV5VEVU= Received: by 10.223.14.146 with SMTP id g18mr681056faa.10.1314223943324; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.50.196 with SMTP id a4ls8134272bkg.1.gmail; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.139.84 with SMTP id d20mr1071019bku.4.1314223942029; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.139.84 with SMTP id d20mr1071018bku.4.1314223942015; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f41.google.com (mail-bw0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a16si740771bku.3.2011.08.24.15.12.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.41; Received: by bkbzt4 with SMTP id zt4so1485823bkb.0 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.138.215 with SMTP id b23mr2532938bku.251.1314223941795; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.113.2 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:12:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110824154151.GA3105@gonzales> References: <20110819100840.GA27065@SDF.ORG> <20110820105209.GD25668@SDF.ORG> <20110820195330.GB19624@SDF.ORG> <20110822102301.GA24775@SDF.ORG> <20110823230437.GC19213@gonzales> <20110824154151.GA3105@gonzales> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:12:21 -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 209.85.214.41 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Tuesday, 2011-08-23 at 22:04 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> >> For me the strongest argument for context dependent individuals comes >> not so much from all this distributivity issue but from kinds/generic >> reference (bare plurals in English). > > Right. I've avoided mentioning these things, not wanting to take too > much mud with the water sample, but since you bring them up... > > I don't think generics can be treated as individuals on par with the > other individuals in our universe. > > Indeed, we would then have to have > =A0 =A0{lo'e mulna'u cu du da poi namcu}. Yes... but only when "namcu" is predicated of the members of the set {integers, rationals, reals, ...}, not when it is predicated of the members of {0, 1, 2, ...} > But since generics are generic, we would also have > =A0 =A0{ro da poi mulna'u zo'u lo'e namcu cu na du da}, > a contradiction. "ro da poi mulna'u" strongly suggests a context where there are many integers (infinitely many, of course), not a context where integers are just one kind of numbers. In the latter context (a strange context because we don't usually apply the universal quantifier over singleton sets) what you have there is false. > So I don't see that {lo broda} can be interpreted as a generic while > holding on to the idea that the interpretation of {lo broda} is > determined by its set of referents. In my understanding, "lo broda" has a single referent in such cases. > I think {lo'e broda} has to be read as introducing a quantifier: > {lo'e broda cu brode} -> "for x a generic broda: brode(x)" > (the semantics of this quantifier being hazy and context-dependent). > > Note also that two such quantifiers generally won't commute (e.g. > =A0 =A0for generic natural numbers n: for generic natural numbers m: n holds, I would say "natural numbers are smaller than natural numbers" is questionable at least, but easily fixed to: "natural numbers are smaller than other natural numbers". But then "natural numbers" and "other natural numbers" are not the same individual, and the second one is in some sense a derivative of the first. > but > =A0 =A0for generic natural numbers m: for generic natural numbers n: n does not), so if {lo'e broda} is allowed as a meaning for {lo broda} > then the idea that {lo broda} should be immune to scope issues has to be > dropped too... I would say "other natural numbers are larger than natural numbers" is fine as a restatement of "natural numbers are smaller than other natural numbers". Just slightly unusual because "other" has to look forward to determine other than what, but still acceptable. > (Assuming scoping works as with other quantifiers, we'd have > {lo'e narmecmulna'u lo'e narmecmulna'u cu mleca} but not > {lo'e narmecmulna'u lo'e narmecmulna'u cu se mleca}.) > > Do you have a cunning way out of this? Not really mine. Are you familiar with Carlson's "A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural"? I'm sure there must be more modern analysis of generic terms, but I like that one very much. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.