From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCIvrTzBBoEldXvYQ@googlegroups.com Sun Sep 11 13:50:29 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R2qyu-0006SR-LU; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:29 -0700 Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3sf3091769ywm.16 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:18 -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:message-id:date:from:subject: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XGm62TyLG8yFixVbAZ/mVNPKbIJ3skvOSFxI4oU2ZXY=; b=SXb7jKWPd7kd2GmZDT5o+AjcvUquBGTFhn5zfG0i689xA44Gmp3rV00IzaJQe5/hKJ mve6EMthKWFdOyjQxPp0w1tlEMZPzVm8wf9kfByU1Ddx6VzB/yILAc/EhN4dFKcKlvVS 52Y2dq2qTjTyS6gpFOU7HpVmM4B5wm2B6Xe48= Received: by 10.151.107.10 with SMTP id j10mr655417ybm.77.1315774216797; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.233.7 with SMTP id f7ls15249096anh.7.gmail; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.177.73 with SMTP id c49mr19492435yhm.0.1315774216150; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.177.73 with SMTP id c49mr19492433yhm.0.1315774216137; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm8-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm8-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.191]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id d41si3233041yhe.3.2011.09.11.13.50.15; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.191 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.191; Received: from [66.94.237.192] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2011 20:50:15 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.98] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2011 20:50:15 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Sep 2011 20:50:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 826478.77200.bm@omp1003.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 52242 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Sep 2011 20:50:15 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 2IfABHEVM1lc7aCEFcv4lbvhCyId2UcJDj1D9YE58.I_gkm vE8K2AnyemPkLbCW2fYsKhep9L5PUlo5ILM1PwzyO6eq2EfK9pCUDZ2Sy7_X Ovjr2CGVwKbAHNJkDxEkRzI24NO.keS_SWBqP_zV1Uf0IYN2zFj1m7e7Yaiw .gpX6LVHViUce2H7.rHwqO3K4jQFuDaSPLFk.AYHjs03stSf4lJtGC1uarbK Zns8abeh7nqD6LvSN2TmW2z.fCSIkdcLliGP2eW69H5ov3PrNVZN1aS2yfNd KsK3Ar78pMWdf2FZ2IT0msOMgDqU1bg1gWUlqi90IQDBP1PYCxnzSD8Ezwcn AxKC0ABqw471MLyP7N0nUIRjWghzb18oXoWfamoiiFI2ZKq1cf4LSpOvLkQE 20xqv_WdamELhYReVZadg.z0o4_xPPKiRbueKonOC.gIUgg-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:15 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625 Message-ID: <1315774215.25455.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:50:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable To: lojban@googlegroups.com 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 66.94.237.191 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {zo'e} is a strange word. It is more often understood than used and, when = used,=20 has primarily a pragmatic function more than a semantic one. It is one of = the=20 stock expansions of the space left by a missing argument in a bridi, along = with=20 pronouns (anaphoric or deictic), regular noun phrases (to the same purposes= as=20 pronouns), {da} etc., and {zi'o}. Its pragmatic function flows from the la= ws of=20 quantity; it means "I don't need to tell you what", either because you alre= ady=20 know from context or because it plays no role in the story being told. Each= =20 occurrence of it is a constant, but separate occurrences are independent (L= 3). =20 In its "plays no role" role, ir does not imply that speaker knows what its= =20 reference is, though its context-sensitive role does. On the whole, it is = an=20 odd thing to have in a logical language: if something plays no role, then= =20 eliminate the temptation to refer to it with {zi'o}. If it is obvious from= the=20 context, then put it in in a minimal way. There ought not be two (let alon= e=20 half-a-dozen) elision transformations with such varied meanings, without cl= ear=20 clues to choose among them. In any case, it seems a weak base to build an= =20 explanation of {lo} on. To do this latest. it has to mean (as it does not= =20 obviously in the original situation) "what I have in mind" -- something I m= ay at=20 some point indeed have to tell you. In addition, MB, at least, seems to = thing=20 it should also mean some specified kind/generic: {lo broda} refers to=20 brodakind, the generic broda or (as we used to say) Mr. Broda. xorxes agre= es=20 that this is a possible reading of {lo broda} -- without, that I can see,= =20 driving this back onto {zo'e}. All of this, needless to say, takes place a= long=20 way from the realm of gaps in a predicate place structure, and so it is har= d to=20 get a grasp on the arguments. Starting from the original meaning, we get t= he=20 following 1E* Everybody is loved by some chihuahua (this seems to me, on the basis of= my=20 experiences with chihuahuas, to be absurd, but anyhow) 2E* Everybody is loved by the thing, which is a chihuahua. 3E* The thing, which is a chihuahua, loves everybody 4E* Some chihuahua loves everybody. =20 4>1, 1/4, 2=3D3, 2>1, 3>4, so 3>1, 2>4 and 1/2. 1/3, 4/2,3 These remarks are essentially domain independent (ignoring domains with onl= y one=20 chihuahua) and I don't see any reason why one domain rather than another is= to=20 be chosen, unless it is to make an inference from 1 to 2 or 4 to 3 go throu= gh. =20 But domains with only one chihuahua (assuming it has any at all) are highly= =20 implausible. So, I don't get what is going on here (or, rather, I do, but = am=20 damned if I will give it the satisfaction of actually saying it so far). So, to go back to basics, {lo broda} refers to a bunch of broda (no metaphy= sical=20 commitments here, just a fac,on de parler that is easier to work with in so= me=20 fine cases) and iis neutral with respect to how its referent is related to= =20 various predicates (including {broda}, in fact). Lojban lacks the means to= say=20 explicitly what that relation is in most cases, but, in any case, saying wh= at=20 that relation is is not a matter to be taken up by a gadri, but at the=20 sumti-selbri interface, if at all. And, it needs to be noted, the choices = are=20 not limited to (conjunctive) distribution and collection, but include at le= ast=20 disjunctive distribution and various statistical and quasi-statistical mode= s. =20 There does not appear to be any reason to think that [lo broda] is ambiguou= s=20 rather than vague (just what all did I have in mind) or that the arguments= =20 above, with {lo broda} in place of {zo'e noi broda} would go through unmodi= fied=20 (in a sensible way, rather than dragging in an odd domain). ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, September 11, 2011 12:46:56 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural= =20 variable [notational note: I looked again at some of the formal semantics literature, and it seems that 'kind' is preferred to 'generic' for the abstract individuals like 'chihuahuas' we've been talking about - which I think corresponds to what are called 'kinds' in e.g. Chierchia "References to Kinds across Languages" 1998; 'generic' seems to be reserved for the {lo'e} idea of "typical individuals". I use 'kind' below.] * Saturday, 2011-09-10 at 15:04 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > * Saturday, 2011-09-10 at 10:43 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas=20 >: > >> > >> 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 =3D {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., l= o > >> tciuaua ku xi pa, lo tciuaua ku xi re, ...} > >> =3D {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahua_1, chihuahua_2= , ...} > >> > >> D2 =3D {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., l= o=20 >tciuaua} > >> =3D {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? > > > > Not entirely. I think 1E-4E could just as well be interpreted in the > > union D12 of D1 and D2 - because a sentence involving "some chihuahua" > > can't have the generic "chihuahuas" as an witness, and although > > (as in Carlson) a predication involving "chihuahuas" is ambiguous > > between being about the generic and about its > > manifestations/stages/whatever, that doesn't mean the domain of > > discourse has to be different for different interpretations. >=20 > The English situation is additionally complicated by the > singular/plural morphology. You say that "some chihuahua" can't have > chihuahuas as a witness, even when chihuahuas are in the domain of > discourse. But why is that? Is it because only chihuahuas can be a > witness, and chihuahuas are not chihuahuas? That can't be the reason > because chihuahuas are indeed chihuahuas. I think it has to do with > something like the witness has to satisfy "...is a chihuahua", and not > just "...are chihuahuas". So those two are different predicates in > English, at least when the domain of discourse is D12. In Lojban we > have to make do with "tciuaua" for both. The situation in English is rather strange. The singular does indeed seem to refer specifically to individuals. Meanwhile the plural is ambiguous between pluralities of individuals and pluralities of strict subkinds - "some chihuahuas" can't be witnessed by the kind 'chihuahuas', but it *can* be witnessed by 'black chihuahuas' or 'dead chihuahuas'. So it seems English does differentiate between kinds and mundanes, but it confuses the two in plurals. This does seem to really be a binary ambiguity, though. I've tested a few native english speakers on the phrase "some dogs love everyone; indeed, chihuahuas do", and they report understanding the intention, but experiencing some surprise on reaching the second clause and having to re-evaluate the first clause to refer to kinds rather than individuals. Further evidence for its binary nature: *"many dogs love everyone; indeed Barney does, chihuahuas do..." is, I think, semantically anomalous. I don't see why we should import this ambiguity to lojban. Even apart from all the problems it causes which it doesn't cause in english ('I hate dogs' doesn't imply 'I hate one or more dogs', even when interpreted in the same domain of discourse), I would think it unlojbanic to have a binary ambiguity - especially one which can't be straightforwardly and clearly disambiguated. > > You seem to be saying that D12 is an intrinsically unnatural domain for > > lojban. That seems to be a difference from english. >=20 > I'm saying a domain like D12 needs extra work. For example, instead of > a single predicate "tciuaua" we need two predicates, to go with the > English "... is a chihuahua" and "... are chihuahuas", which we would > have to use instead of the plain "tciuaua" to properly restrict the > quantifier. Yes, I think something like this might be the solution. We allow domains like D12 as a matter of course, and have a new predicate corresponding to the kind sense of "... are chihuahuas" - i.e. meaning "is a (non-strict) subkind of the kind 'chihuahuas'". It and {tciuaua} should b= e mutually exclusive. If we have a way of getting explicitly at the kind 'tciuauas', we can then use {klesi} to get at subkinds. So we need something corresponding to Chierchia's down operator. This shouldn't be {lo'e}, because that's about genericity. I'm wondering whether it could indeed be {lo} - using Chierchia's type-shifting (which is similar to Carlson's quantification over stages) to get back to existential quantification over instances. The crucial change from what you've been suggesting would be that although {lo broda cu broda} would hold, and {lo broda} would be referring to an individual in our universe, it would *not* follow that this individual satisfies the x1 of {broda} in the usual sense - rather, {lo broda cu broda} would transform by type-shifting to {su'o da poi [instance-of] lo broda cu broda} (where {me} might or might not work for [instance-of]). I'll read some more of Chierchia and see if I can come up with a proposal along these lines which would satisfy us both (and hopefully everyone else). > > (In fact, I *would* like to claim that 1L logically implies 2L, because > > I would still like to analyse {zo'e} (but not {lo}) as in the subject > > line of this thread. But that's beside the point.) >=20 > So you would like to claim >=20 > D1 |=3D 1L > implies D1 |=3D 2L >=20 > and that D1 is a natural/preferred domain for 1L. >=20 > If that's how you want to analyse "zo'e", you still have to account > for the "obvious" as opposed to the "irrelevant" sense of "zo'e". As > in: >=20 > - xu do djica lo nu klama lo zarci > - u'u mi na kakne lo nu klama .i ei mi klama lo drata > "Do you want to come to the market?" > "Sorry, I can't go. I have to go somewhere else." >=20 > That should not come out as "I can't go anywhere." Hmm. Yes, it isn't a simple existential quantifier. But how about just having the domain of the existential quantification be contextually determined - i.e. the quantifier is "for some xs such that context suggests I would likely be talking about xs here". The domain 'everything' would always be plausible; other domains like {the market we just mentioned} or 'all markets' would be plausible in certain contexts. Martin --=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.