From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD20q3zBBoEQeQBSg@googlegroups.com Sat Sep 10 06:43:31 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R2NqB-0001pR-6b; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:30 -0700 Received: by fxg17 with SMTP id 17sf608843fxg.16 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:20 -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=4TAZvxU/hP5dnlIOlRzE+opydsAGFhmwSoBht/k7+8Q=; b=G+Lc7X1NRqSsPoORt7le0T908gcPPYNT3KYCBiW9pJePupBXzJk2gidVSgpjxW67ez ooFzVnnsXgmZbLHJ4GIzNG38Q4/mvexEvhyEiOBbH2L3FnZQy0v65Kn3Tp32PfsRWQ69 zx5vnlaWrmgKIYIYUM1sfgjs9U6NFIzh3r2QM= Received: by 10.223.64.146 with SMTP id e18mr727910fai.3.1315662198208; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.134.87 with SMTP id i23ls779621bkt.2.gmail; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.7.220 with SMTP id e28mr78774bke.5.1315662196818; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.7.220 with SMTP id e28mr78773bke.5.1315662196800; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com (mail-fx0-f45.google.com [209.85.161.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a4si79464fad.3.2011.09.10.06.43.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.45; Received: by fxh13 with SMTP id 13so361971fxh.4 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.10.22 with SMTP id n22mr226967fan.78.1315662195630; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.23.233 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:43:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110910000859.GG30010@gonzales> References: <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> <20110908034236.GM30833@gonzales> <20110909002555.GA14986@gonzales> <20110909142128.GA18556@gonzales> <20110910000859.GG30010@gonzales> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:43:15 -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 209.85.161.45 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 9:08 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > The context here was meant to be that we are assuming that everyone is > loved by some chihuaua (in the sense > FA x:person. EX y:chihuaua. loves(y,x)), > and everyone is loved by some German shephard. > > It wouldn't follow in english that some dog loves everyone, nor that > some dogs love everyone, nor that some kinds of dogs love everyone, nor > anything else I can think of along the same lines. > > But it would follow that > {ro prenu cu se prami zo'e noi tci,uaua} (1), > and, unless I'm misunderstanding, your interpretation of that zo'e > makes the following true (in domains of discourse where (1) holds): > {da poi tci,uaua cu prami ro prenu} (2). > > I don't think this has an analogue in english, nor in any other rarbau > I know. Let's see. We have four sentences: 1L: ro prenu cu se prami su'o tciuaua 1E: Everyone is loved by some chihuahua. 2L: ro prenu cu se prami zo'e noi tciuaua 2E: Everyone is loved by chihuauas. 3L: zo'e noi tciuaua cu prami ro prenu 3E: Chihuahuas love everyone. 4L: su'o tciuaua cu prami ro prenu 4E: Some chihuahua loves everyone. We also have two domains of discourse: D1 = {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., lo tciuaua ku xi pa, lo tciuaua ku xi re, ...} = {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahua_1, chihuahua_2, ...} D2 = {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., lo tciuaua} = {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahuas} D1 and D2 are not the same domain. Sentences 1 and 4 "put us" in domain D1, while sentences 2 and 3 "put us" is domain D2. By that I mean that those are the natural domains in which to interpret those sentences without any more context. Do we agree so far? I think we are both in full agreement that sentences 4 entail sentences 1, but sentences 1 do not entail sentences 4. I claim that sentences 2 and 3 entail one another. At this point I'm not sure whether you agree with that or not. I make no claims about any entailments between 2-3 and 1 or 4, since they have different natural domains of discourse. You are saying, if I unerstand you correctly, that 1 entails 2, and that 3 entails 4 (or that I am claiming that they do), and that therefore 1 entails 4 and we (or I) have a contradiction. I think that the only way you can move from 1 to 2 is by changing your domain of discourse, so there is no logical entailment there. > I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to have as a frequent element of > the domain of discourse an individual "chihuahuas" which gerkus and can > be a value of {da}... but this is kind of a separate issue. Here I'm > just saying that there shouldn't be one which gerkus and also pramis > everything which any chihuahua pramis. In the same domain of discourse? I agree. As I've been saying, mixing generics and their instances in the same domain of discourse is not impossible, but it requires extra work. If chihuahuas are dogs, and Spot is a dog, and Pichichus is a dog, that doesn't mean we have three dogs there. We can't just add Spot, Pichichus and chihuahuas together to get three. >> >> "I love buying things, but then I never know where to put them." [...] >> 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. > > No, my objection is that the english pronoun "them" has a more > complicated anaphoric meaning which is being lost by working only with > the generic "things". OK, but consider these two points: (1) "I love bumping into John, but then I never know what to talk about with him." Would your analysis of "him" also require that it picks up the same stages of John that I bump into? If so, this has nothing to do with "them" referring to a generic, since the same type of issue would arise with John-him. If not, why not? (2) "I love buying things, except when they are too expensive." Would your analysis of "them" in the original sentence be the same as the analysis of "they" in this sentence? If you use a different analysis, it seems to me you are making pronouns much too ambiguous. The way I would capture what you claim is being lost by the generic is something along these lines (which I'm not claiming is anywhere close to a formal theory as I'm presenting it): It is part of the meaning of "buying" that when you buy things you end up having them, and it is part of the meaning of having things that you can put them places, so there is a natural semantic connection to be made when talking of buying things and of putting things in places that we are talking of the same things, the same manifestations of things. But I don't think this connection is hidden in the pronoun. It's the same as with the John case, it is part of the meaning of someone bumping into someone else that they have to be in the same place at the same time, and when two people are in the same place at the same time they can talk. So there is a natural connection to be made when talking about bumping into someone, and of talking with someone, that the same stage of that someone is involved in both cases. But I don't think that this connection is hidden in the pronoun either, it follows from the type of situations involved. If the next sentence used the same pronoun with a predicate that didn't have to involve the same stages, the referrent of the pronoun would not change. For (2) the connection to be made goes through a different route: buying things requires things to have prices, and things having prices mean things can be expensive, so again there is a natural connection to be made there that the manifestations of things involved in the buying of things excepted from being loved are those manifestations that are expensive. But I don't see how that can be adjudicated to the pronoun. 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.