From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC1uJryBBoEGaWqUA@googlegroups.com Sat Aug 13 08:46:12 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsGPX-0000Wo-Ou; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:46:11 -0700 Received: by yie36 with SMTP id 36sf6128948yie.16 for ; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:46:01 -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; bh=RSoCUTo1QOh9JqybYijUlbTiB0UWwtUIamusBskhnRA=; b=4GXZISUcxiE2cFdw5/GT8F5VnTJQ3zpdI4h9+eEOlobJMxJNwcBcqSAto8YSJabnaB ayct7u92+QnzuR+SfT2UIiJbrtXk3jxa5Rmn6DD6NBXiNihQLruL9qSTolGYwh1J686e WWQWaYg+UJekHtw1IxIqYjXfm2K3Oh4LHBHCA= Received: by 10.91.33.26 with SMTP id l26mr414937agj.34.1313250357423; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.122.4 with SMTP id u4ls12895147agc.5.gmail; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.73.197 with SMTP id v45mr5170305yhd.15.1313250355770; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.73.197 with SMTP id v45mr5170304yhd.15.1313250355761; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm27.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm27.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.92]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id b5si3145661yhe.4.2011.08.13.08.45.55; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.92 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.92; Received: from [66.94.237.127] by nm27.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 15:45:55 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.120] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 15:45:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2011 15:45:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 491650.22032.bm@omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 63919 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Aug 2011 15:45:55 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: SR.ynA4VM1lqXyuU9eO747iV5w4kIsYOkV2DgzFMVwhMMzB 6C_6VrMyM2ck7C76XTYSp31s.rsmWxP3ZdlH9KH_.0h2TDGRWiROckr5I1_7 wDtwdXmABfCZ41YVmPPOahpkPJDfFOkyvx0OWhfvgUAmrHaZT.A0HroBiwlP 9FTB37QqiRSEm0BXlMUA5fVYlXoXD1.fWLrVyBy1Bqd3hmPDIY163xBh3.Fb b9XvYt9xM4.5eyZmpVr08B8_wh2N_jebOYjjfu3wiEkZvDtsmDNw4PdkSYEH oVXrsuRqLLnnVgTnd_UK4PGtL4VvExHqbMZO2qGV6jrAIikVlwwevwHhtAn4 t2IvqRilb2P4CjiOS6uwqD6WZABllN0c9eTYkFPS1bBFJm.po8V3FoO3V9S5 N_j6LnsV6vXQKt7M7kiEvdanBndR_AJMdsqPYx9DZ9tZZ3Mm1lWdecrb9d8N p1Y_N Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.313619 References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> Message-ID: <1313250355.61318.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20110813124739.GP10697@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 66.94.237.92 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 Well, picky picky, but 1) ain't no sets here (in the usual meaning of sets -- and, for xorxes, in any sense at all). There are just the things (or the whole they comprise) 2) it would be better, rather than having an Ambiguous flag, either to have a case without a flag at all or allow both flags to fly so that we could pick the one that fit the situation. 3. careful with gunma, as always: the referents take on the bridi collectively, but there is nothing else there (xorxes view). 4. external quantifiers of lo, loi, and probably the rest all shift to distributive mode (and fractional quantifiers are fine, just as "half the students wore red ties is). Otherwise (and this is mainly about how what you meant was expressed) your summary is fine, i. ro lo broda cu broda is not a tautology, since the individuals in lo broda may be broda only collectively (lo sruri be lo dinju, e.g.), in which case, the sentence is false. ii. ditto iii. this is probably a definition of sorts, otherwise a tautology -- or would be if 'gunma' were actually defined in some appropriate way. de falso omnia so no contradiction we need worry about (the gunma of all non-gunma would probably lead to some sort of problem, though maybe not, since, for me, every gunma is in itself). again,, 'ro lo broda' need not be the same as 'ro broda', which is, at best, 'ro lo ro broda'. ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 7:47:39 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses * Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 05:41 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities which > > > > individually broda? > > > > > > No, just loi. lo is completely non specific. > > > > I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but... > > Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whether the > referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J. Cowan > said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to specifically > refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cmavo or cmavo > cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}. > > {lo} is completely generic, and distributive or collective reference when > using only {lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadni cu > sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju}, > but distributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether > those which {tadni} are distributive or collective. OK. I would like to semi-formalise this understanding as follows: The interpretation of a sumti (or more accurately: a sumti-6) consists of a set of referents and a distributivity flag. The distributivity flag has three settings: Distributive, Collective, and Ambiguous. When used in a bridi, the bridi is respectively claimed of each referent, or of the referents as a gunma, or ambiguously between the two options. {lo broda} and {loi broda} both return Sumti6 whose referents each satisfy broda; the difference is just that the flag is set to Ambiguous in the first and Collective in the second. lu'a and lu'o reset the flag, but have no other effect. When quantifying (non-fractionally) over a sumti, the flag is ignored. Does this accurately capture the intention of xorlo? > > all I'm claiming is that > > {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies > > distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial? > > How could it be controversial? Good. My point then was that the following three assertions are inconsistent: (i) {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology (ii) {ro loi broda cu broda} is a tautology (iii) loi broda == lo gunma be lo broda (i.e. have the same referents) Indeed, we can derive a contradiction with broda set to {na'e gunma}: ro loi na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (ii)) ro lo gunma be lo na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (iii)) su'o gunma cu na'e gunma (by (i)) > Also, IIRC, if you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually need > lo. ({PA lo broda} = {PA broda}) (sure, I'm just leaving the 'lo' in to emphasise that the {lo broda} in {ro lo broda} has a meaning of its own, with the {ro} then quantifying over its referents) Martin -- 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.