From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCNi7vzBBoEhRLZ8g@googlegroups.com Mon Sep 12 19:53:14 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f56.google.com ([74.125.83.56]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R3J7V-0002bg-Hb; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:13 -0700 Received: by gwaa11 with SMTP id a11sf99904gwa.1 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:03 -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:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-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=grdH/hQ3otDMYq/m0qtNW6UE2Xk/teaAwX4JCL2LcCo=; b=VinFYVg468xjvIbgEr/UqHyTcKL6ZuRZA7WqOKnejzxSCIaVK4OQh7P/1IWbiXYb7w TA6JTU0vMvKJp1/m39D7Oip1Ui6i/sVRLgRFA7bINkD6wBcXsvi/0Deui02xDbyUmYMw ValONes0F4UK1YSBOkC917u2EoEvT78QOysVI= Received: by 10.236.191.68 with SMTP id f44mr3504411yhn.0.1315882381588; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.12.9 with SMTP id p9ls181115ani.6.gmail; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.19.14 with SMTP id 14mr5002805ans.31.1315882380496; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.19.14 with SMTP id 14mr5002803ans.31.1315882380472; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm24-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm24-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.143]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id b5si371366ybf.0.2011.09.12.19.53.00; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.143 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.143; Received: from [66.94.237.201] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2011 02:53:00 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.111] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2011 02:53:00 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Sep 2011 02:52:59 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 992178.48562.bm@omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 98063 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Sep 2011 02:52:59 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: OXDbirwVM1nkFagwiNTr8buuggO6yCUOTN4phspQj4tCeol ETvavvKIa0z0u97QnnDlFTRQXt2zJHrWqtbBeaJsSNPbM3NPSNdRcXnbVpmR mz.pRjjuOqBE286fFy2_M5.a3ftrEBQC_O8xkcaJn1gs0LX6J9uXvbSrKi3U oy3MmF8xe8f9d2L8_l99RUrd9dUZ1ffEAAOIO0ZjY2CZsAUCBs0Nsgurtzzl jH_x68EtMqrzhFqrI8rFWhEeWy8pwdSOUiwus2oon3RpqzEF_jkACwBW2.Fb rhnBs9M10D7o3tkxKXCYARkJRKsQLIUmy0maHg0bl_t_rdw4Cie_9DUcGpNy aCXjTyBLi7kNWexZ3t5Du6jY.dcFSY6.F7T.2yH631ApMOgsC7yvPOaWfUmJ A0tmr_EgvvBYA6iVmdW61Zt8ldWoklpjc9BzoxGRmbsKZ54C2RQoRgWEOf4c 3KkO.2CzVhVSDZ.C0YZcL00sVzCA9NAobB6HX5UdPAOXOcdcTTwf6BDc_A_e c7uxp1yZGJYEqqK.BHoeYrKwI1VpgDjOzG9DLJD2wIKjkJpunfo8.Cqr7gi0 IZcV8weTALQv6l1tMc2PkVLi52c0r Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:52:59 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625 References: <1315774215.25455.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110912225255.GG28088@gonzales> Message-ID: <1315882379.97949.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:52:59 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20110912225255.GG28088@gonzales> 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 66.94.236.143 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 [1] The new definition (I don't know how much it differs from the old) see= ms=20 defective, since {zo'e} ought not be able to stand for any variable, not ju= st=20 {no da}. {zo'e} is a referring expression, not a variable, although what i= t=20 refers to may be different in each occurrence (or, more often, non-occurren= ce). =20 As for [zi'o} radically changing the meaning of a predicate, it does, but o= ften=20 in the interest of making the meaning of the predication clearer by removin= g=20 irrelevant considerations. Note, nothing seems to say that {zi'o} can't or= =20 shouldn't be the reading of a blank. I'm not sure what C is (context?), but it is pretty clear that many {zo'e} = do=20 not refer to things in that, since they refer to irrelevancies, by saying t= hey=20 are irrelevant (I suppose that depends on how you set up your universe, but= =20 anything not mentioned can be dispensed with in almost any way of doing tha= t.) [2] I don't follow this at all. Why need the referent of {zo'e} be in one= =20 pragmatic range or the other depending on the size of the possibilities. T= he=20 crucial question seems to be about being grokked from context, which seems= =20 independent of the possible answers. [mi klama] has a nearly infinite numb= er of=20 fill-ins for x2, yet in the given case is taken to be an "obvious" case. O= r is=20 that what C does, fine down the range? And , if so, how would the sum all= =20 chihuahuas help do that, since that seems a rather big range (whatever it i= s,=20 btw). [3] Try mine: {lo broda} refers to a bunch of broda (which bunch is context= ually=20 determined). This bunch is related to a predicate in any of a variety of w= ays:=20 collective, conjunctive, disjunctive, some intermediate forms in which=20 subbunches are related in various collective ways (the individual cases bei= ng=20 the bottom row of this), and various "statistical" cases (which, admittedly= ,=20 take more work, most of which is yet to be done). Your different sorts of= =20 generics/kinds seem to me to be just different ways that a bunch can satisf= y a=20 predicate (the "tendency" sort being of the not-quite-worked-out sort, the= =20 others being of more familiar sorts). As for Mr. Broda, he has been around= for=20 at least thirty years, arising from a conflation of Quine and some social= =20 anthorpologist dealing with Trobriand Islanders, and has had more definitio= ns=20 and explanations that I can count up from memory, but basically it is somet= hing=20 present wherever a broda is present doing whatever the broda does (i.e., a= =20 distributive predication of the bunch). [4] At a certain point, it became clear that all the various chats about b= rodas=20 were talking about the same thing, so it seemed to follow that that should = be=20 the simple reference and all the messy details go elsewhere. Since the det= ails=20 are about how this basic thing, lo broda, trlated to, the predicate involve= d, it=20 seem that the place to put the info is where the two meet up. It is not cl= ear=20 exactly how to do this, but having a different descriptor for eachcase, whe= n=20 what is being referred to is always the same, seem bad logical form. =20 Have you ever tried to go a Montague grammar for even a small part of Lojba= n? =20 The hideosities of some of the complex structures will blow your mind and y= ou=20 paradigms, although the very basic stuff is pretty straightforward. (By th= e=20 way, using {zi'o} for "doesn't matter" blanks makes life a lot easier). [5] WTF is "vague ambiguity"? ambiguity between two vague concepts? Usual= ly=20 the two words contrast with one another. And how is polysemy different fro= m=20 ambiguity? (term of art?) Of course, I take {lo broda} to refer to a bunc= h of=20 broda, vaguely specified, perhaps. The connection with the predicate is th= en=20 ambiguous (as matters now stand), since there are half-a-dozen possibilitie= s at=20 least, and several of them may be plausible in a given situation. [6] It seems the discussion arises from trying to get from {lo tciauau cu p= rami=20 lo prenu} to something that will end up allowing an AE claim to be converte= d,=20 salve vertitatem, into an EA claim. Most of the steps suggested seem=20 implausible at best and none of them seem to take account of the real featu= res=20 being employed, beyond the quantifiers, variously understood (no considerat= ion=20 for the type of connection to the predicates, for a main example). The mov= es to=20 save parts of this seem just desperate.=20 ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, September 12, 2011 5:52:55 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural= =20 variable * Sunday, 2011-09-11 at 13:50 -0700 - John E Clifford : > {zo'e} is a strange word. It is more often understood than used and, > when used,=20 >=20 > has primarily a pragmatic function more than a semantic one. It is > one of the stock expansions of the space left by a missing argument in > a bridi, along with pronouns (anaphoric or deictic), regular noun > phrases (to the same purposes as pronouns), {da} etc., and {zi'o}. [1]I thought the modern convention was that {zi'o} isn't allowed (see www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Grammatical+Pro-sumti ). Certainly it makes things more complicated if it is! If we don't allow {zi'o}, it seems that "somethings among C", where C is glorked from context, deals with all the expansions you mention. i.e. {broda zo'e} -> EX X among C. broda(X) (well... technically this doesn't handle {da}, if we consider that to be a singular variable, but it's close to doing so) > Its pragmatic function flows from the laws of quantity; it means "I > don't need to tell you what", either because you already know from > context or because it plays no role in the story being told. Each > occurrence of it is a constant, but separate occurrences are > independent (L3). =20 > In its "plays no role" role, ir does not imply that speaker knows what it= s=20 > reference is, though its context-sensitive role does. [2]I'd want to say that this difference is got at by the choice of C. If C is something like the sum of all people, we effectively have the "plays no role" idea. If C is small, like {la .alis. joi la bob.} or the sum of all chihuahuas, we have the "you-know-what" interpretation. > 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 context, then put it in in a minimal way. There ought not be > two (let alone half-a-dozen) elision transformations with such varied > meanings, without clear clues to choose among them. Quite. > In any case, it seems a weak base to build an explanation of {lo} on. > To do this latest. it has to mean (as it does not obviously in the > original situation) "what I have in mind" -- something I may at=20 > some point indeed have to tell you. In addition, MB, at least, > seems to thing it should also mean some specified kind/generic: {lo > broda} refers to brodakind, the generic broda or (as we used to say) > Mr. Broda. [3]MB doesn't really think that any more. MB is (belatedly) largely despairing of getting a neat and politically acceptable theory of {lo}. He also thinks we should be careful to separate generic brodas, which satisfy a predicate iff brodas tend to satisfy it, from kinds which can have entirely different properties (like being widespread). He never understood who Mr. Broda was meant to be. > xorxes agrees that this is a possible reading of {lo broda} -- > without, that I can see, driving this back onto {zo'e}. All of this, > needless to say, takes place a long way from the realm of gaps in > a predicate place structure, and so it is hard to get a grasp on the > arguments. Starting from the original meaning, we get the=20 > following > 1E* Everybody is loved by some chihuahua (this seems to me, on the > basis of my 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 only one chihuahua) and I don't see any reason why one domain > rather than another is to be chosen, unless it is to make an inference > from 1 to 2 or 4 to 3 go through. =20 > But domains with only one chihuahua (assuming it has any at all) are high= ly=20 > implausible. So, I don't get what is going on here (or, rather, I do, bu= t 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 > metaphysical commitments here, just a fac,on de parler that is easier > to work with in some fine cases) and iis neutral with respect to how > its referent is related to various predicates (including {broda}, in > fact). Lojban lacks the means to say explicitly what that relation is > in most cases, but, in any case, saying what that relation is is not > a matter to be taken up by a gadri, but at the sumti-selbri interface, > if at all. [4] I'm not sure what you mean by all that. But my starting point here is that the sumti-selbri interface should be simple - corresponding to elements and relations in a Kripke model (or some more baroque structure along the same lines), as in Montague-style formal semantics. Are you saying that you think this simply inappropriate for lojban? > And, it needs to be noted, the choices are not limited to > (conjunctive) distribution and collection, but include at least > disjunctive distribution Why would you want to include that? > and various statistical and quasi-statistical > modes. There does not appear to be any reason to think that [lo > broda] is ambiguous rather than vague (just what all did I have in > mind) [5]I think that if we allow {lo broda} to be the Kind broda, this would be polysemy rather than just vague ambiguity. But it sounds like you don't want to? > or that the arguments above, with {lo broda} in place of {zo'e > noi broda} would go through unmodified (in a sensible way, rather than > dragging in an odd domain). [6]I'm not sure what you mean here. Martin > ----- 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 plur= al=20 > variable >=20 > [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.] >=20 > * Saturday, 2011-09-10 at 15:04 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : >=20 > > 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, ..,= lo > > >> tciuaua ku xi pa, lo tciuaua ku xi re, ...} > > >> =3D {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahua_1, chihuahua= _2,=20 ...} > > >> > > >> D2 =3D {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, ..,= lo=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. >=20 > 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'. >=20 > So it seems English does differentiate between kinds and mundanes, > but it confuses the two in plurals. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Further evidence for its binary nature: > *"many dogs love everyone; indeed Barney does, chihuahuas do..." > is, I think, semantically anomalous. >=20 > 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. >=20 > > > You seem to be saying that D12 is an intrinsically unnatural domain f= or > > > 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. >=20 > 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= be > mutually exclusive. >=20 > If we have a way of getting explicitly at the kind 'tciuauas', we can > then use {klesi} to get at subkinds. >=20 > 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]). >=20 > 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). >=20 > > > (In fact, I *would* like to claim that 1L logically implies 2L, becau= se > > > 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." >=20 > 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. >=20 > Martin >=20 > --=20 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 >"lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at=20 >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. >=20 --=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.