From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCvnMPzBBoExB3UfQ@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 14 08:54:40 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R3rnD-00056e-Ly; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:40 -0700 Received: by vwe42 with SMTP id 42sf2317226vwe.16 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:25 -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-id:x-yahoo-newman-property :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5pN9jJiRLTjtrOt/aVZLt4EmC7jVj1DgFoRFd/gDwVg=; b=rqmnRKKhIv2oO/4NyDF6jPNrgBVi+CPYLvlHCEjna4MwShY4OkkLEPjel1pSOgjl3B q0jy+QsH8xC9csJXF1LbKXfQhyvtWmYqhLshMSrRESUeDat8FZ2is7oemkyPwUyB0FYJ vwYXY1PbxikKoL7C65Vo+DijBAd+xqUvnzMgc= Received: by 10.220.39.9 with SMTP id d9mr305219vce.34.1316015663756; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.159.2 with SMTP id wy2ls1977538vdb.0.gmail; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.234 with SMTP id bn10mr1625971vdc.30.1316015662662; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.234 with SMTP id bn10mr1625970vdc.30.1316015662646; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com. [98.139.52.222]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id bh5si1897009vdc.3.2011.09.14.08.54.22; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.52.222 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.52.222; Received: from [98.139.52.189] by nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2011 15:54:22 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.144] by tm2.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2011 15:54:22 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1027.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2011 15:54:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 324363.31484.bm@omp1027.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 12639 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2011 15:54:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: rdm5Y3QVM1mH6gxZJt2j7Gp.NxZKeSA2IkQExWP6x3qmO6a 3BhcFyEwNmqEeEwZPcGmjU985GjpnUkOHK7ww2eky3xq0h6Wg2BXx_njkoaA dALQMuugAzUvBcyxReqVHye2gwrvptCxkumkHSeGuEGDLiDrRAv1cTOIEsrG HE02bU8Jr.ufd1wuNRc3rPpH7aXb17PLukp9lQlzwwUtTtNSBuD8.J5rzGSW IU22UwHDCXVWgKDte8Pcq6dawF_8Aq3ENb1HafJsRmifyR095Dx5tr6chbiu ptzYSO039zS7JkTvIf0XqWnMkKAJt0ao9un61rMyhglXDsXSanoUF_86AK9i JgO0iNcTCeVSd_R6aOSpKMuwAwmuhYa2OMSKE9y8l4QRq_A5uDjNgdYUJC7m g7t.cr84VvzKLHEB2pCH1skr5Lcd_4jXXPgj6oGubDkQXK4sQGeFBsWxqZYc dQOgF4TUqYlPbnfHFA.FYgjqzg8l.Z9CsLNwhWkNp1CBSR_ro19_D8z8j2kk K1dBhOzXdm1K_BXszyxgPxu6oTZ71G9ekvK5dZjE- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie) by smtp105-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2011 08:54:21 -0700 PDT References: <1315774215.25455.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110912225255.GG28088@gonzales> <1315882379.97949.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110914041335.GO28088@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20110914041335.GO28088@gonzales> X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: <55EFAEEE-10A9-4002-951E-7BD949DC29F7@yahoo.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_9944446_AHrHjkQAAEAYTnAr4wk+9Dz6Cxg Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:05:13 -0400 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" 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 98.139.52.222 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] quantified variables are variables, they do not refer to anything but c= an be replaced under certain condition by referring expression. {zo'e} is o= fficially a referring expression, hence not a variable; what it refers to i= s both vague and ambiguous (the obvious thing, it is unimportant what). To= be sure, at some levels of analysis, it is useful to take referring expres= sion as universal scope particular quantifiers, but that doesn't operate he= re. The thing about referring expressions is that they pass through quanti= fiers undisturbed, whereas bound variables, eve with tight scope, do not in= general. Ok. While I think {zi'o} is a natural blank filler and {zo'e} is a crude d= odge, I don't want to make an issue of it. I merely note that, if it does = work as a dodge, it is ill-equipped to serve as the base for an explanation= of {lo}. OYes, excluding something fro your universe is different from quantifying = over that universe. tI am still not clear what C is. [2] Assuming "the sum of all chihuahuas" means a bunch of chihuahuas that = gets them all in, how does this focus the referent of the pronoun to some c= hihuahuas in a way that just having chihuahuas in the domain does not? Sent from my iPad [3] What is more natural than having a bunch of things? What seems unnatura= l to ( Nominalist) me is having in addition a generic chihuahua (and maybe chihuah= ua kind besides). So, reading between the lines of your description of a kind, brodakind is p= retty much brodaness, the function from possible wolds to the ( set of) = brodas in that world (tense and the like merely deal with certain regular c= omplexities in the system of worlds). But properties don't love people -- = or hate them. {pavyseljirna} btw, vs is not legal medial. But talking about unicorns doe= s not mean that unicorn horn have to be in the universe of discourse. Usin= g metrology here means breaking up bunches of thing in the universe, not br= eaking up individual things in the universe. We can talk about widespread and rare creatures without tenses, even withou= t location tenses. If we are going to talk about unicorn horns, then it is clear that wherever= (in the broadest sense) there are unicorn there are unicorn horns -- a bun= ch of the one guarantees a bunch of the other (assuming no one has cut them= off for medicine, etc., in which case the two bunches may be very separate= and the horn bunch reduced to powder).=20 I'm not sure which notation you are using, but I suppose that "cup" is the = avatar counting function for situations. [4] hideosities from Richard's classes 50 years or so ago but not successfu= lly resolved so far as I can tell: tanru, compound predicates (without tran= sformations), ditto arguments and argument sequences, "modals", UI, {du'u},= and on and on. Can I see what you have so far; I haven't mucked in this m= idden for years and it would be interesting to see what progress there has = been. =20 [5] I'm afraid that discrete and continuous ambiguity are not much clearer = than vague ambiguity; this seems to be reducing vagueness to ambiguity, rat= her than noting that they are opposites (too many meanings vs not enough). Bunches operate intensionally like anything else (except, as a bow to xorxe= s, they aren't things). A bunch of broda can be anything from a single bro= da to all the broda ever on all possible worlds (including impossible situa= tions). You do have to indicate, somehow, what your range is (and thus spec= ify your universe of discourse a bit).=20 On Sep 14, 2011, at 0:13, Martin Bays wrote: > * Monday, 2011-09-12 at 19:52 -0700 - John E Clifford : >=20 >> [1] The new definition (I don't know how much it differs from the >> old) seems defective, since {zo'e} ought not be able to stand for any >> variable, not just {no da}. {zo'e} is a referring expression, not >> a variable, although what it refers to may be different in each >> occurrence (or, more often, non-occurrence). >=20 > How does that differ from using a tight-scope existential quantifier? >=20 >> As for [zi'o} radically changing the meaning of a predicate, it does, >> but often in the interest of making the meaning of the predication >> clearer by removing irrelevant considerations. Note, nothing seems to >> say that {zi'o} can't or shouldn't be the reading of a blank. >=20 > Well, the common understanding seems to be that it can't. > (If the common understander is reading and disagrees, please speak) >=20 > e.g. > http://dag.github.com/cll/7/7/ > is reasonably clear in saying that omitted places should be considered > filled with {zo'e}s. >=20 >> I'm not sure what C is (context?), >=20 > C is determined by context, hence the choice of letter. It's just > some things. >=20 >> but it is pretty clear that many {zo'e} do not refer to things in >> that, since they refer to irrelevancies, by saying they are irrelevant >> (I suppose that depends on how you set up your universe, but anything >> not mentioned can be dispensed with in almost any way of doing that.) >=20 > Is this different from existentially quantifying over the universe? >=20 >> [2] I don't follow this at all. Why need the referent of {zo'e} be in o= ne=20 >> pragmatic range or the other depending on the size of the possibilities.= The=20 >> crucial question seems to be about being grokked from context, which see= ms=20 >> independent of the possible answers. [mi klama] has a nearly infinite n= umber of=20 >> fill-ins for x2, yet in the given case is taken to be an "obvious" case.= Or is=20 >> that what C does, fine down the range? >=20 > Yes, that was the idea. >=20 >> And , if so, how would the sum all chihuahuas help do that, since that >> seems a rather big range (whatever it is, btw). >=20 > This would handle the case of context indicating that the {zo'e} should > mean "some chihuahuas". >=20 >> [3] Try mine: {lo broda} refers to a bunch of broda (which bunch is >> contextually determined). This bunch is related to a predicate in any >> of a variety of ways: collective, conjunctive, disjunctive, some >> intermediate forms in which subbunches are related in various >> collective ways (the individual cases being the bottom row of this), >> and various "statistical" cases (which, admittedly, take more work, >> most of which is yet to be done). Your different sorts of >> generics/kinds seem to me to be just different ways that a bunch can >> satisfy a predicate (the "tendency" sort being of the >> not-quite-worked-out sort, the others being of more familiar sorts). >=20 > Maybe (i.e. depending on what exactly you mean) this can handle kinds, > but I don't think it would be very natural. >=20 > Following Chierchia98 once more, we can consider the kind Broda to be > a reification of the map from situations (which for simplicity, ignoring > tense issues, we can identify these with possible worlds in Kripke > semantics) to the (sum of the) actual brodas in that situation. >=20 > So we can say things like "unicorns necessitate unicorn horns" and mean > that any situation with a unicorn also has a unicorn horn > \forall s. ( \cup(Unicorn)(s) !=3D 0 -> \cup(UnicornHorn)(s) !=3D 0 ) . >=20 > (I know... unicorns again... sorry for lack of imagination) >=20 > (if we add time and space information to situations, we could also talk > about a kind being 'rare' or 'widespread') >=20 > Does this mean something about {lo pavseljirna} and {lo pavseljirna > jirna} where these refer to bunches? If the bunch refered to by {lo > pavseljirna} consists of all unicorns in all possible worlds, and comes > with the data as to which unicorns are in which possible world, then > yes. But that's a rather specific bunch, and a lot of information to be > carrying around. >=20 > In reality, I think I'd prefer to translate the above sense of "unicorns > necessitate unicorns horns" into lojban by something like > {lo ka pavseljirna cu za'e zatni'i lo ka pavseljirna jirna}. >=20 >> As for Mr. Broda, he has been around for at least thirty years, >> arising from a conflation of Quine and some social anthorpologist >> dealing with Trobriand Islanders, and has had more definitions and >> explanations that I can count up from memory, but basically it is >> something present wherever a broda is present doing whatever the broda >> does (i.e., a distributive predication of the bunch). >>=20 >>=20 >> [4] At a certain point, it became clear that all the various chats >> about brodas were talking about the same thing, so it seemed to follow >> that that should be the simple reference and all the messy details go >> elsewhere. Since the details are about how this basic thing, lo >> broda, trlated to, the predicate involved, it seem that the place to >> put the info is where the two meet up. It is not clear exactly how to >> do this, but having a different descriptor for eachcase, when what is >> being referred to is always the same, seem bad logical form. =20 >>=20 >> Have you ever tried to go a Montague grammar for even a small part of >> Lojban? The hideosities of some of the complex structures will blow >> your mind and you paradigms, although the very basic stuff is pretty >> straightforward. >=20 > Yes, but only the easy bits (those corresponding to FOL) thus far. I got > stuck on handling {lo} and {zo'e}... >=20 > What kind of paradigm-blowing complexities do you have in mind? >=20 >> (By the way, using {zi'o} for "doesn't matter" blanks makes life a lot >> easier). >>=20 >> [5] WTF is "vague ambiguity"? ambiguity between two vague concepts? >> Usually the two words contrast with one another. And how is polysemy >> different from ambiguity? (term of art?)=20 >=20 > I meant "polysemy" to indicate a discrete ambiguity, and "vague > ambiguity" a continuous one. I think the first at least might be a term > of art (but not my art). >=20 >> Of course, I take {lo broda} to refer to a bunch of broda, vaguely >> specified, perhaps. The connection with the predicate is then >> ambiguous (as matters now stand), since there are half-a-dozen >> possibilities at least, and several of them may be plausible in >> a given situation. >=20 > So I think the main thing I don't understand about your understanding of > {lo} is how these bunches work wrt intension, i.e. how they interact > with possible worlds and tense. >=20 >> [6] It seems the discussion arises from trying to get from {lo tciauau >> cu prami lo prenu} to something that will end up allowing an AE claim >> to be converted, salve vertitatem, into an EA claim. Most of the >> steps suggested seem implausible at best and none of them seem to take >> account of the real features being employed, beyond the quantifiers, >> variously understood (no consideration for the type of connection to >> the predicates, for a main example). The moves to save parts of this >> seem just desperate.=20 >>=20 >>=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 plu= ral=20 >> variable >>=20 >> * Sunday, 2011-09-11 at 13:50 -0700 - John E Clifford : >>=20 >>> {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}. >>=20 >> [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! >>=20 >> 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) >>=20 >> (well... technically this doesn't handle {da}, if we consider that to be >> a singular variable, but it's close to doing so) >>=20 >>> 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 = its=20 >>> reference is, though its context-sensitive role does. >>=20 >> [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. >>=20 >>> On the whole, it is an=20 >>> odd thing to have in a logical language: if something plays no role, th= en=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. >>=20 >> Quite. >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> [3]MB doesn't really think that any more. MB is (belatedly) largely >> despairing of getting a neat and politically acceptable theory of {lo}. >>=20 >> 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). >>=20 >> He never understood who Mr. Broda was meant to be. >>=20 >>> 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 hi= ghly=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)= . >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> [4] I'm not sure what you mean by all that. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Are you saying that you think this simply inappropriate for lojban? >>=20 >>> And, it needs to be noted, the choices are not limited to >>> (conjunctive) distribution and collection, but include at least >>> disjunctive distribution >>=20 >> Why would you want to include that? >>=20 >>> 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) >>=20 >> [5]I think that if we allow {lo broda} to be the Kind broda, this would = be >> polysemy rather than just vague ambiguity. >>=20 >> But it sounds like you don't want to? >>=20 >>> 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). >>=20 >> [6]I'm not sure what you mean here. >>=20 >> Martin >>=20 >>=20 >>> ----- 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 pl= ural=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 >>>> : >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 1L: ro prenu cu se prami su'o tciuaua >>>>>> 1E: Everyone is loved by some chihuahua. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 2L: ro prenu cu se prami zo'e noi tciuaua >>>>>> 2E: Everyone is loved by chihuauas. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 3L: zo'e noi tciuaua cu prami ro prenu >>>>>> 3E: Chihuahuas love everyone. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 4L: su'o tciuaua cu prami ro prenu >>>>>> 4E: Some chihuahua loves everyone. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> We also have two domains of discourse: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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 >> ...} >>>>>>=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} >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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? >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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, bu= t >>> 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 domain= s >>> 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} shou= ld 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 (whic= h >>> 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 o= f >>> {broda} in the usual sense - rather, {lo broda cu broda} would transfor= m >>> by type-shifting to {su'o da poi [instance-of] lo broda cu broda} (wher= e >>> {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 Grou= ps=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 >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "lojban" group. >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj= ban?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.