From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD5teDyBBoEXsoA0Q@googlegroups.com Fri Aug 26 15:15:45 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qx4gU-00007U-29; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:44 -0700 Received: by vxh2 with SMTP id 2sf2668964vxh.16 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:23 -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=zxS65La0NoBAInkOvt0AA7fbrpr5Z5uwJJ1OgpuKj+4=; b=YlqVNh6EzQ+QNuResZ2SKbmqhkGe1tu/TrO9otTfGHH4lbf1UEf5zq+TsvWMG7lBnR s5uCd4uW+yWMrbhivag8ON5bUT5+p/RR7xEkuy+gy/NLBYxNHkwtnqA//S11qvh8ilZ6 6+edUrlvv7JM1tJrgzVqeNJXg141/mfKu5afI= Received: by 10.220.118.82 with SMTP id u18mr482115vcq.12.1314396921994; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.161.134 with SMTP id xs6ls306992vdb.0.gmail; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.113.130 with SMTP id iy2mr1713963vdb.1.1314396921118; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.113.130 with SMTP id iy2mr1713962vdb.1.1314396921106; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f42.google.com (mail-vw0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si3918536qcv.1.2011.08.26.15.15.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.42; Received: by vwl1 with SMTP id 1so3507032vwl.15 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.23.138 with SMTP id m10mr1821117vdf.184.1314396920808; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.169.38 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:15:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110826105057.GH13699@gonzales> References: <20110822102301.GA24775@SDF.ORG> <20110823230437.GC19213@gonzales> <20110824154151.GA3105@gonzales> <20110825090633.GC13699@gonzales> <20110825231909.GG13699@gonzales> <20110826105057.GH13699@gonzales> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:15:20 -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 209.85.212.42 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 Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > But wouldn't you agree that the domain of discourse should be mostly > static? I think it needs to be mostly dynamic. (Don't ask me for a full theory of dynamic how, but I think the static assumption only works for interpreting small chunks of language at a time.) >So we can't solve the problem of {ci da panzi mi} by just > declaring that such a statement indicates that the Kind {lo'e panzi mi} > probably isn't in the domain of discourse, because it wouldn't be at all > remarkable for {lo'e panzi mi} to be explicitly talked about in a nearby > or even the same sentence. With a strictly fixed domain that would be hard to do, I agree. >> I'm not sure it's such a good idea to think of kinds as being made of >> something. > > Well... they come from unary predicates (no?), and sometimes those are > true of only one thing. e.g. {lo'e me mi}, maybe. Unless you want to say things like "I am no longer who I was ten years ago", or "I am not the same person when I'm on vacation". Sometimes you can do that just with tense, or you can say it's metaphorical, but a metaphorical interpretation is still an interpretation. >> >> and "poets write some poems, but most poems are written by non-poets"? >> > >> > I don't think 'poets' is a generic there, any more than 'non-poets' is. >> >> Carlson would disagree. (Or rather,I think he would say that bare >> plurals are always the same thing, I'm not sure he would call it a >> generic.) > > Hmm. I think he would call 'poets' and 'non-poets' indefinite plurals, > and analyse them as existentially quantified > instances/realisations/stages of the corresponding Kinds (as in section > 4.2 of the paper you reffed). Read again the paragraph beginning "But here I seem to be arguing the contrary of what I have argued for at length a bit earlier [...] the remainder of this work is devoted to the resolution of this contradictory state of affairs." The resolution is that the existential quantifier ends up being buried within the predicate, not in the bare plural term. The predicate "... writes some poems" becomes something like "/xEy[R(x,y)&writes-some-poems(y)", while "poets" translates as "/PP(p)". And this works because, as Carlson points out, bare plurals are never actually ambiguous as to what reading they should be given. The predicate normally selects for which reading is the one called for, and when it doesn't it's because the predicate itself is ambiguous, as can be shown with the same predicate acting on non-bare plural arguments. >> but for "lo broda lo brodi cu >> brodu", just the same as for any other "ko'a ko'e broda". I just don't >> think that "lo broda" fixes by itself any level of abstraction. > > So you think we should just consider it as another part of the ineffable > and irreducible semantics of brodu? It doesn't have to be ineffable and irreducible, but yes, I think it makes more sense to shift the focus of the analysis there. > Meanwhile, one last translation question: do you have a way of rendering > "humans have two legs" in your lojban, using the Kind 'humans' but > without using anything like the {ckaji lo ka...} trick? I would say: "lo remna cu se tuple re da". 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.