From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCizsTzBBoEUz3eDA@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 14 15:14:05 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R3xiU-0000Sv-SX; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:14:05 -0700 Received: by fxg17 with SMTP id 17sf24401fxg.16 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:55 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=90sukcLK4tPefRWb6vpRqnRLkzNcowNox7P7vFz7ung=; b=dwIcnJgIcTGNj0w3fd+2dlu2RExCwnrNcqvnnK6wIsdQKHNLJ4N8iIhPv9yUCkz/yN CBcJmDrXWf2wbp2SP5nEyj/E3ONSCxSEJYfvdHqAm6utoeaOwbnVlHTSDgTm5WiDeDH5 Ufje2XdPOTcyBrXouxWlrq5ou9j/otujpQTwo= Received: by 10.223.51.140 with SMTP id d12mr182685fag.28.1316038434263; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.134.87 with SMTP id i23ls967664bkt.2.gmail; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.150.197 with SMTP id z5mr81929bkv.3.1316038433028; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.150.197 with SMTP id z5mr81928bkv.3.1316038433011; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f42.google.com (mail-fx0-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n17si728849fah.1.2011.09.14.15.13.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.42; Received: by mail-fx0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b27so39571fxb.29 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.57.12 with SMTP id a12mr503539fah.97.1316038432823; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.23.233 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110914024044.GN28088@gonzales> References: <1315774215.25455.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110912225255.GG28088@gonzales> <20110914024044.GN28088@gonzales> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:13:52 -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 209.85.161.42 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Monday, 2011-09-12 at 23:22 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> >> How is "John smokes and was born in London" different from "chihuahuas >> are fiercely loyal and may have originated in Mexico"? >> >> I don't see a good reason to accept one but not the other. > > We can analyse the generic sentences like this (as in Chierchia98, p.366)= : > > "John smokes" -> for generic relevant situations s, John smokes in s I would suggest -> for generic relevant situations s, John is smoking in s otherwise you are explaining "John smokes" in terms of "John smokes" again. "John is smoking" is something more concrete than "John smokes". You can for example see whether John is smoking or not in a given situation, but you can only infer whether he smokes or not. Seeing just one situation where he is smoking may not be enough to conclude that he smokes. > "chihuahuas are fiercely loyal" -> for generic relevant situations s and > chihuahuas x, x is fiercely loyal in s. > > (here 'situation' could mean co-ordinates with respect to possible > worlds and time) I was thinking of being fiercely loyal as not a situational property but as something more intrinsic. If you think of being loyal as something situational, change the example to something intrinsic, say "chihuahuas are between six and ten inches tall". Then the corresponding expansion would be something like: for generic relevant instances i, chihuahuas are between six and ten inches tall in instance i. In a given instance, there is only one (relevant) chihuahua-manifestation, just as in a given situation there is only one (relevant) John-stage. "This chihuahua here is between six and ten inches" is again much more concrete than "chihuahuas are between six and ten inches". You can only infer the latter one from enough relevant instances of the former. The analogy (and remember it's just an analogy, I'm not saying "John" and "chihuahuas" are the exact same type of thing!) is between John/stages-of-John and chihuahuas/manifestations-of-chihuahuas. A manifestation is itself an individual that can have its stages, but that's a different further breakdown. > In both cases, I think we should analyse (both in english and in lojban) > the genericity over situations as being located in the predicate. But I was comparing the genericity of situations for John with the genericity of instances for chihuahuas. > In lojban, we could make it explicit with something like > {na'o so'e mu'ei} > (although a single cmavo for it would be better... I note that {na'oi} > appears to be free) > > For John, there's nothing left to explain. For chihuahuas, we still have > the genericity over them to explain. For English, Chierchia98 talks > about "accommodation" and type-casting to get chihuahuas into the > generic quantifier. I don't see why we have to copy that. There's only one genericity to explain if you consider intrinsic properties of chihuahuas. In any case, the point was that John remains John whether we consider his situational properties or his non-situational properties, and similarly we don't really need to have two different chihuahuas, the kind and the generic. It's their properties that can be classified as kind-properties and generic-properties. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.