From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDVtKrzBBoEyLPlhw@googlegroups.com Fri Sep 09 15:59:46 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R2A2x-0004tJ-9g; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:46 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf3627997fxd.16 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:35 -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=SXa5sWVDTB5j7ndH9CxUK3ipMH2dfhmqHAiKoSu5hcs=; b=GAJ7QrVmhosSnbTKMS0Non8gE+r9BhV+1dZisV71JBGCqLrvKttBaTgsDyQSP0IEnU OWrTAX8WZE1pkbu2HeBuE+DmVxfLsigVViX5gWBCHKmV8tKpUbVomv3ckkHbthIVyglh vblfz5SMzk0YCFa1jZhw0FgrenDI1prU/rxSI= Received: by 10.223.38.219 with SMTP id c27mr630658fae.19.1315609173403; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.134.87 with SMTP id i23ls517632bkt.2.gmail; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.71 with SMTP id p7mr555001bku.16.1315609172005; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.71 with SMTP id p7mr555000bku.16.1315609171986; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (mail-fx0-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f27si18006faf.2.2011.09.09.15.59.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.41; Received: by fxg9 with SMTP id 9so3050831fxg.28 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.64.66 with SMTP id d2mr429350fai.116.1315609171843; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.23.233 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110909142128.GA18556@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> <20110908034236.GM30833@gonzales> <20110909002555.GA14986@gonzales> <20110909142128.GA18556@gonzales> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:59:31 -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 209.85.161.41 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 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > But with your zo'e, mixed interpretations are necessary, e.g. to explain > {ro prenu cu se prami zo'e noi prenu}. So I think this is no different > from the "some dogs love every human" example. Do you think you can use > {su'o gerku} there, despite the "chihuauas" and "German shephards" > interpretation? If so, why? Why not? Both interpretations are available for the English sentence, it's not so surprizing that they also be available for the Lojban version. If you object to the interpretation that could get instantiated by chihuahuas then your objection must be either that chihuahuas in general just are not available as the value of a variable, no matter what the context, or that they are available in certain contexts but not as something that satisfies the x1 of gerku or the x1 or prami. So your objection is either ontological or it has to do with the semantics of "gerku" or "prami". In either case it is not about logic or logical form. >> Just "things": "I love buying things, but then I never know where to >> put them." > > But the 'them' doesn't mean 'things in general', it specifically refers > to those bought in the first clause. In my analysis the domain of discourse here has only four (relevant) members: I, things, my buying things, and the indirect question (I may also need there to be several other members, each of which is a place, for the makau to make sense, even though they are not directly mentioned). > So... So again, I think your objection is either ontological: there's no such thing as "things" that could possibly be the value of a variable, no matter what the context, or your objection is about the semantics of either "buy" or "put" or both: these predicates won't admit such a value as their second argument. If the objection is that the statement is too coarse grained for your taste, that you prefer statements that are more precisely nuanced, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the coarse grained statements violate any logical rule. 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.