From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCv1sXzBBoEV8iK_g@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 14 20:04:28 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R42FT-0008Jr-4Y; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:28 -0700 Received: by yih13 with SMTP id 13sf2474456yih.16 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:17 -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=uqi8EgPWxmM3ILi/HfKV7fnoJ0X1hZl4BekRAZqHCHM=; b=U4g97YeJP2y2jbetiDZbYuEEjLtglIJlv/5+kcdsQn7ap80fwTCXqJSlh2nYfT4dJl +rhl6TRaWcstsx0G2b2E9uGadE8bT/EINYWgaAegtnV9luI1Tu44+xhWmEpmSO9nDRhA qx1QsV7TfKrpQPzgGo4rzRxkdGtLQuOoc5fcs= Received: by 10.150.62.14 with SMTP id k14mr143974yba.17.1316055855418; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.189.18 with SMTP id r18ls5952511anp.1.gmail; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.188.13 with SMTP id q13mr577431anp.33.1316055854660; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.188.13 with SMTP id q13mr577430anp.33.1316055854640; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm2-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm2-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.66]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id g1si3633360anp.1.2011.09.14.20.04.14; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.66 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.66; Received: from [66.94.237.197] by nm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2011 03:04:14 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.117] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2011 03:04:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2011 03:04:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 173780.93081.bm@omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 40217 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Sep 2011 03:04:14 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: fTjNqE8VM1nWGaUb77FNHB3ZObwP.5ViLZ.udwsGoPCDx.M G8ZeFpqhbhhPh3Mu2e.ttvVNp6KXXAVcbxt9_LzmBmU5T44lzd4anzSnymjZ Eqq2Quz0HoyN7Q3YFWh3lmTn755zp4IkeZU0z4Z1y0nlv.p0udGdUDcMh39v o4XERKe_iz.NWMDD4MPoUtaBCLMpbWHBcs44kNjDAGT_Dtc84ef8Jip9V7hz W0Gi3P9y9qTB.KZU0ev.nx0B0D1x3kmKjRBUSSh1wAGKVJUgV72AvSrOSzY6 STUYdeShhY8ouAwj.Mrji4dhwOBuoXn3DWgJJjuDCQGhQPrjEFwkibI0aApR FxCt0O5BnCXRh2F0y8b8oZoBJMI2wg_O6fKdx0rhztpsGNwWhPyIPdmWd4C1 ZkRrWGXcjTZ.Q6LeO4l0OTF0WtTfzvRnecMfqp6q8tckjRt0NsvS4WONPGCK gy2GCHrTxgwaJpmeFoMSNiYZSFAVExnTZDMcuaCau1SOQLhHFA0FsuDJJGV3 5qIGe4cVFEYRDP2Z4Hyun.HusWc1WTvXz97lxsRh2Br.weWfJscClnw-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:13 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625 References: <1315774215.25455.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110912225255.GG28088@gonzales> <1315882379.97949.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110914041335.GO28088@gonzales> <55EFAEEE-10A9-4002-951E-7BD949DC29F7@yahoo.com> <20110914232007.GC6492@gonzales> Message-ID: <1316055853.22283.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:04:13 -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: <20110914232007.GC6492@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 66.94.237.66 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] So you would have the referent of {zo'e} be a Skolem function, which re= turns=20 a different referent for each value of {da}, which seems to get the right= =20 result, the same effect could be done by either taking the bunch of possibl= e x2s=20 and picking the right one from context, including especially the choice of = x1=20 (remember, I am not convinced that {zo'e] makes any sense at all or which o= f its=20 several senses actually works or is at work in a given case, so problems he= re=20 are not a major issue for me). C, then, is the range of that function (whi= ch=20 then is just the set of possible referents for {zo'e}). I just don't see t= he=20 gain in throwing in another quantifier, especially given the problem with= =20 shifting that result. [2] So C somehow is narrowed down to a particular bunch of things by the br= oader=20 context and the right thing for a given value of {da} is then selected from= this=20 but I am unsure what the intermediate selection does that cannot be done=20 directly. I suppose in {roda klama zo'e}, C is immediately restricted to= =20 destinations, i.e., places, and the correct one picked out the choice of {d= a}=20 instantiation. This all seems to be the same thing, differently worded and= =20 differently segmented, but the same procedure (assuming -- as I do not -- t= hat=20 {zo'e} can be understood in this rather tortuous way). [3] It is not clear that you have fewer superfluous entities than xorxes, = just=20 different ones (or, at least, different ways of expressing the move that se= ems=20 to me to be direct). I would think that the way to deal with bare plurals in English (etc.) woul= d be=20 to use plurals (or Lesniewskian sets, if your are hung up that way). I dso= n't=20 see how talking about things other than bears, even if you somehow get back= to=20 them eventually from these new critters, is at all clarifying to a simple= =20 plural. I can say that bears shit in the woods meaningfully and truthfully= =20 because, by and large, bears do shit in the woods: at least a subjective=20 statistic and maybe even backed up by objective ones. What do generics add= ? =20 Even if you go off into subjunctives, it is still bears, not bearkind you a= re=20 dealing with. Bearkind don't shit anywhere. Or Mr. Bear. How is all that stuff about the number of unicorns indicating the number of= =20 unicorn horns an improvement on saying "Wherever there are unicorns there a= re=20 unicorn horns" just thusly? Note, that, if this means that because unicorn= s are=20 in the domain of discourse, then unicorns are also does not apply, so the= =20 principle is, in fact, not valid at the meta level, just in very worlds. Widespread creatures are numerous (collective property) and occur in lots o= f=20 places (disjunctive), rare creatures are few and far between. No worlds, n= o=20 tenses -- even spatial ones, just ordinary predicates. =20 [4] I'll be happy to see whatever you have; I can use a refresher. [Later= :=20 looking at what you have sente suggests that you have gone beyond the Monta= gue=20 grammar to parsers and the like in languages I don't know. I would rather = just=20 see the Montague grammar for now, not the stuff built on it yet.] ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, September 14, 2011 6:20:07 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural= =20 variable * Wednesday, 2011-09-14 at 12:05 -0400 - John E. Clifford=20 : > [1] quantified variables are variables, they do not refer to anything > but can be replaced under certain condition by referring expression. > {zo'e} is officially a referring expression, hence not a variable; > what it refers to is 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 expression as universal scope particular > quantifiers, but that doesn't operate here. The thing about referring > expressions is that they pass through quantifiers undisturbed, whereas > bound variables, eve with tight scope, do not in general. Yes, but we seem to want the latter. In {ro da klama zo'e}, the intended referents of {zo'e} will depend on the x1. xorxes would fix this with kinds/generics; I'd prefer the straightforward solution of making the zo'e scope within the universal quantifier. > [...] > tI am still not clear what C is. Perhaps it would clarify if I re-express it in a purely singularist way: I'm suggesting we analyse {zo'e} as introducing, at tightest scope, an existential quantifier "\exists x \in C", where the C is a contextually determined set. So e.g. {zo'e broda ro da} -> \forall y. \exists x\in C_y. broda(x,y) I confused things slightly by working with a plural semantics. > [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 chihuahuas in a way that just having chihuahuas in > the domain does not? Is this now clear? If context indicates that C is the set of all chihuahuas, the zo'e means "whatever chihuahuas" - which is somewhere in between "whatever" (C=3Duniverse) and "Chichi" (C=3D{Chichi}). > Sent from my iPad > [3] What is more natural than having a bunch of things? What seems > unnatural to ( Nominalist) me is having in addition a generic > chihuahua (and maybe chihuahua kind besides). I would prefer to do without them. Xorxes thinks this impractical/undesirable. > So, reading between the lines of your description of a kind, brodakind > is pretty much brodaness, the function from possible wolds to the > ( set of) brodas in that world (tense and the like merely deal with > certain regular complexities in the system of worlds). But properties > don't love people -- or hate them. Yes. Chierchia (and, basically, Carlson) deal with this by type-shifting. If you use a kind as an argument in a predicate which expects mundane individuals, to make the types work out either an existential or generic-universal quantifier over instances of the kind is introduced (which depends on the sentence). They use this to explain bare plurals in english, and corresponding phenomena in other natural languages. > {pavyseljirna} btw, vs is not legal medial. (thanks) > But talking about unicorns does not mean that unicorn horn have to be > in the universe of discourse. Using metrology here means breaking up > bunches of thing in the universe, not breaking up individual things in > the universe. I wasn't saying it was true, just an example of a statement we can make using kinds (or properties). > We can talk about widespread and rare creatures without tenses, even > without location tenses. Without using kinds? How? > I'm not sure which notation you are using, but I suppose that "cup" is > the avatar counting function for situations. Sounds right. I took it from Chierchia - \cup K is the map from situations to the sum of all instances of the kind K in the situation. > [4] hideosities from Richard's classes 50 years or so ago but not > successfully resolved so far as I can tell: tanru, compound predicates > (without transformations), ditto arguments and argument sequences, > "modals", UI, {du'u}, and on and on. Yes... many of these I'd expect to just ignore for now, or implement hackily and approximately. > Can I see what you have so far; I haven't mucked in this midden for > years and it would be interesting to see what progress there has been. = =20 Little if any progress beyond previous attempts, I suspect. But I'll send you my work-in-progress anyway. (In a separate mail; it isn't anything like ready for public release) > [...] > Bunches operate intensionally like anything else (except, as a bow to > xorxes, they aren't things). A bunch of broda can be anything from > a single broda to all the broda ever on all possible worlds (including > impossible situations). You do have to indicate, somehow, what your > range is (and thus specify your universe of discourse a bit).=20 Let me ponder this. Martin > On Sep 14, 2011, at 0:13, Martin Bays wrote: >=20 > > * Monday, 2011-09-12 at 19:52 -0700 - John E Clifford=20 : > >=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= one=20 > >> pragmatic range or the other depending on the size of the possibilitie= s. =20 >The=20 > > >> crucial question seems to be about being grokked from context, which s= eems=20 > >> independent of the possible answers. [mi klama] has a nearly infinite= =20 >number of=20 > > >> fill-ins for x2, yet in the given case is taken to be an "obvious" cas= e. Or=20 >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, ignorin= g > > 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 "unicorn= s > > 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 go= t > > 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 o= f > > {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 p= lural=20 > >> variable > >>=20 > >> * Sunday, 2011-09-11 at 13:50 -0700 - John E Clifford=20 >: > >>=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 i= n > >>> 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 wha= t 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 t= he > >> 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, = then=20 > >>> eliminate the temptation to refer to it with {zi'o}. If it is obviou= s > >>> from the context, then put it in in a minimal way. There ought not b= e > >>> 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 ca= n > >> 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 inferenc= e > >>> from 1 to 2 or 4 to 3 go through. =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=20 >am=20 > > >>> damned if I will give it the satisfaction of actually saying it so fa= r). > >>=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 i= s > >>> 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 b= e > >> simple - corresponding to elements and relations in a Kripke model (or > >> some more baroque structure along the same lines), as in Montague-styl= e > >> 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 woul= d 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 tha= n > >>> 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 = plural=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 th= e > >>> abstract individuals like 'chihuahuas' we've been talking about - whi= ch > >>> 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 >: > >>>=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, chihuahu= a_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 thos= e > >>>>>> sentences without any more context. Do we agree so far? > >>>>>=20 > >>>>> Not entirely. I think 1E-4E could just as well be interpreted in th= e > >>>>> union D12 of D1 and D2 - because a sentence involving "some chihuah= ua" > >>>>> 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 n= ot > >>>> 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 'dea= d > >>> 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 t= o > >>> re-evaluate the first clause to refer to kinds rather than individual= s. > >>>=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= 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 woul= d > >>>> 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 doma= ins > >>> like D12 as a matter of course, and have a new predicate correspondin= g > >>> to the kind sense of "... are chihuahuas" - i.e. meaning "is > >>> a (non-strict) subkind of the kind 'chihuahuas'". It and {tciuaua} sh= ould=20 >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 (wh= ich > >>> is similar to Carlson's quantification over stages) to get back to > >>> existential quantification over instances. The crucial change from wh= at > >>> you've been suggesting would be that although {lo broda cu broda} wou= ld > >>> 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 transf= orm > >>> by type-shifting to {su'o da poi [instance-of] lo broda cu broda} (wh= ere > >>> {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 hopeful= ly > >>> everyone else). > >>>=20 > >>>>> (In fact, I *would* like to claim that 1L logically implies 2L, bec= ause > >>>>> I would still like to analyse {zo'e} (but not {lo}) as in the subje= ct > >>>>> 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 jus= t > >>> 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 marke= t > >>> 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 Gr= oups=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 Gro= ups=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 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.