From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDt3qDzBBoEH-da4Q@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 07 19:59:05 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1UpR-0000iS-Nd; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:59:04 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf339556qwh.16 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:55 -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=3vSF6FX3o7RQcGor8KMkWmLKHPm+2UGajm8Gjx5J6T8=; b=Cin6H2wFITerzS8YELAmDT3bPFumr+o02mFXzXnWF4VOlXhbqOggkG5l5uOwCEzPKV ArmmEG8bdiOYy1eBv71kheLM/dGiglT91hnNmKnSH4ZVWQvpgX/l/OyeZvb+SN7pyYnQ leog33fa6bDoN+afknbKXe6Wuvru7xUvFkB8I= Received: by 10.224.212.7 with SMTP id gq7mr9371qab.2.1315450733583; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.44.197 with SMTP id b5ls4368879qaf.2.gmail; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.211.69 with SMTP id gn5mr144595qab.26.1315450733133; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.211.69 with SMTP id gn5mr144594qab.26.1315450733123; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f173.google.com (mail-vx0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si1395427qcv.1.2011.09.07.19.58.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.173; Received: by vxi32 with SMTP id 32so343544vxi.18 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.156.45 with SMTP id wb13mr149951vdb.245.1315450732630; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.163.133 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:58:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:58:52 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable 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 209.85.220.173 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, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 21:47 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> >> I was still thinking in terms of possible answers to "xu do klama lo >> zarci". In such a context, I would take the referents for "zo'e" in >> "ro ma'a klama [zo'e]" to be the same as for "lo zarci". > > Ah. So in other contexts, {ro ma'a klama} could be true without the > destinations being the same for different referents of {ma'a}? But only > because you'd have the zo'e mean the generic "destinations"? Right. > If you introduce such generics, it seems that it becomes impossible to > unambigously specify order of quantifiers. This, surely, is a Very Bad > Thing. Scope of quantifiers is always unambiguous. What I think is impossible is to fix one domain of discourse for all discourse independent of its context. > I mean: you seem to be suggesting that for any broda(x,y) and any domain > of discourse M, there should be another plausible domain of discourse *M > extending M and an element *y \in *M such that > \forall x\in M. (\exists y\in M. broda(x,y) =3D> broda(x,~y) ). I'm not sure I follow. If *y is meant to be a generic term for some things already existing in M, then I would consider the extended domain *M implausible rather than plausible. I would think that in most plausible domains of discourse the generic doesn't coexist with its manifestations. Making them coexist takes some special effort. > But then if I do say {su'o de ro da zo'u da broda de}, it could be that > I'm working in M and really mean to make the strong assertion > M satisfies \exists y. \forall x. broda(x,y) , > or I could be working in *M and hence be claiming only > M satisfies \forall x. \exists y. broda(x,y) . Yes, if I say "there's some fruit that everybody ate" I could be saying (and probably would be saying) that everybody ate apples, for example. Is that what you mean? > The only way to tell which I meant would be informal rules about saying > things in the least confusing way. Yes, if you thought there was some risk of confusion as to what the domain of discourse was, you would need to be more precise: "there's some kind of fruit that everybody ate" vs "there's some individual fruit that everybody ate". But that's unavoidable, since the domain of discourse is not uniquely fixed for any and all contexts. > So no, I don't think such tricks should be resorted to unless absolutely > necessary - and if they do prove necessary, I'd think it a problem with > the language. You call them tricks, but I think it's an ordinary part of language. >> > It sounds like you might be giving it longest scope rather than >> > shortest, which gets around that kind of issue... though it still has = to >> > scope inside the da in {ro da zo'u broda zo'e noi brode da}. >> >> I don't give it any kind of scope, since I don't think constants have >> scope. But if you do need to force constants to be quantified, then >> yes, I would have to favour longest over shortest. > > What's the alternative to scope? > > I thought we agreed earlier today that zo'e isn't literally a constant > in general, e.g. it has to scope inside {da} in the above example. But functions don't have scope either, it is quantifiers that have scope. If a function happens to take a bound variable as an argument, then its value will be determined within the scope of the quantifier that binds that variable, yes. 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.