From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC_jKXzBBoEtYwoXg@googlegroups.com Thu Sep 08 15:48:42 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1nOi-0005g2-0v; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:42 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf1209201qwh.16 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:33 -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=ovFxjir2Ob1P/DPAzSFu70KeKW3boQ//oFKxN8TezyM=; b=VVf3ocp5HvGeMgjmqrQMbLly+T2H5mXuRFS9i1Q8kEEOY6X+G52bzwprQWeg01m9Zv dM3mX1kyhn+KL5C7dCjGFMwlYk0O9X5JqM2SGNm2k/nJGDqtUuWNA5k2bMMYBvSb29Tn Z9n25kCsAOMZrh5vOVurDCTYAM48vgb7CnYW4= Received: by 10.224.211.130 with SMTP id go2mr166252qab.22.1315522111101; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.206.135 with SMTP id fu7ls6116422qab.0.gmail; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.215.196 with SMTP id hf4mr946280qab.27.1315522110134; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.215.196 with SMTP id hf4mr946279qab.27.1315522110122; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f181.google.com (mail-vx0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m27si3084852qcz.2.2011.09.08.15.48.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.181; Received: by vxl15 with SMTP id 15so47902vxl.26 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.107.164 with SMTP id hd4mr807813vdb.312.1315522109813; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.163.133 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110908034236.GM30833@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> <20110908034236.GM30833@gonzales> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:48:29 -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 209.85.220.181 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 Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > The ambiguity would be widerspread than in English, of course. You can't > say "someone loves everyone" and mean that the generic lover does, but > you could with {da prami ro de}. And if this generic lover is invoked by > innocuous phrases like {ro se mamta cu se prami}, it wouldn't be > a particularly exotic reading. I think it would be somewhat exotic but only because you would be mixing two levels of abstraction for the same things in the same sentence. But "su'o da prami ro de" does have a reading that "someone loves everyone" lacks, because Lojban doesn't distinguish someone/everyone from something/everything. "su'o da prami ro de" could be instantiated by "dogs love everything" (as opposed to, say, cats, that only love themselves). Then, since dogs love everything, then something does love everything, i.e. "su'o da prami ro de". In general, Lojban can be more vague than English. But that's not a bad thing, as long as we have the means to be more precise when we want or need to. > You may be right that it's impractical to grammatically distinguish > between generics and mundanes (and perhaps also that there isn't > a coherent distinction between the two), though I'm not really convinced > yet. But even if so, introducing with zo'e these generics which > demonstratedly *aren't* necessary, because they don't really exist in > natural languages, seems unhealthy. But they do exist in natural languages! They are all over the place. mi nelci lo nu mi te vecnu zo'e goi ko'a .i ku'i ba bo mi no roi djuno lo du'u mi punji ra makau "I love buying stuff, but then I never know where to put it." What is that if not a generic? 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.