From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCK683zBBoEBBU2pQ@googlegroups.com Fri Sep 16 09:17:30 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f57.google.com ([209.85.210.57]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R4b6S-0004LD-Il; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:17:30 -0700 Received: by pzd13 with SMTP id 13sf727774pzd.12 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:17:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-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=dP9cC0u1Dz8K1FL8YGuir9a03oCmROpeZCmcOqtzi1o=; b=f8a+ayDfgLLGWD9TmJyb1nJCqZa0b5GWvzADbI6ro0ucjreZpEtJnP/6H6AispEAGj 6BXLj88lbCHEiV5cV+997m3arV2gd5kWpNWqBtdGKOXXdVgYag5jTQSt13Qu2bWef+nL kXP7wi2Ko/qX26mafLEO1WGSccNWTF1gKt9QQ= Received: by 10.68.52.233 with SMTP id w9mr518687pbo.50.1316189578293; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.38.201 with SMTP id i9ls13465646pbk.3.gmail; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.168 with SMTP id s8mr1156468pbq.15.1316189577465; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.168 with SMTP id s8mr1156467pbq.15.1316189577444; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com. [98.139.91.92]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id kr11si15176627pbb.1.2011.09.16.09.12.57; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.91.92 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.91.92; Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2011 16:12:56 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.33] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2011 16:12:56 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1033.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Sep 2011 16:12:56 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 947659.21291.bm@omp1033.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 37862 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2011 16:12:56 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: USZoKsEVM1kZnTMn6kpFu5hH_fBLWRnu6f56xU8XKHBrJET NSRoRo6uuutOlXimji5s9BH04yxXZauN6hsFNN.bCzua_3Uf1auXJQ8uxtDE YwbBEWx734lcjb.1ObYAeqI_tmO21iBxuMZliZ.Hgff.50k2dTVLrqML.Spw 1MhNGRYGHJ.U5pwFn4Ow_2BcRhO62RS4Kv.Or1t7HHMEaEhxp9A_oqAdWJrZ qpxG2s6o_T.ziS5eG8amtwE9N.dmQQpQLhncdeRm8SxqRR5Yxo9Jnkqbo_ED QxoaZdDtlIuGeFG2OOiMjjZSUZzYsF4Nhr8Og.mu7Yb4oklyfvt7mJPJzF5Q jpeXKLOPTMlugNuBFsciOACeJR1U.X3vRn5T3a33wpO1qpiXiZiIpzooV2.p S_WaTZxa7ogBtPJN23R7_B5VQz2fbA68sTvBpC1FM.Xv6LfjVc1PhGpAOR7v s.3klGyJMlZ5lKuVGT2Pqq1OT2R7YPvJ.bUNXO5JHNCoRvGfayr4zYvCloAV J1aa4WSP_aZe_Mm6T_Mo8msCYIOoawCLuvV0CQ.I- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie) by smtp120-mob.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2011 09:12:54 -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> <55EFAEEE-10A9-4002-951E-7BD949DC29F7@yahoo.com> <20110914232007.GC6492@gonzales> <1316055853.22283.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110916000632.GD7274@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20110916000632.GD7274@gonzales> X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_9959999_AHfHjkQAAXnDTnKTDwxWgCuEjiE Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:23:57 -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 98.139.91.92 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] Sincei have doubts about what {zo'e} means, I'm not sure what {mii na k= lama zo'e} means, but I suppose it must be either "I do not go there", wher= e "there" is some place obvious from context (the value of the Skolem funct= ion for the argument mi) or "I don't go anywhere", if it's a particular qua= ntified variable, certainly not you second choice. The problem with short-scope variables ( especially unstated one) is just t= heir recalcitrant behavior under negation and overt quantifiers. {zo'e} pr= esumably keeps it's referent under negation, while a quantifier would chang= e radically. [3] Well, I probably don't understand xorxes either, at least partly becaus= e I carry too many of his earlier schemes in mind and partly because I have= n't read either of the works you two keep citing (indeed, I don't even know= the name or source of either). As for the problem that leads to the need = for kinds or generics or both), I haven't seen the evidence that these can'= t be handled by just a bunch of things (admittedly, I don't know exactly ho= w to do some cases, but that seems just a temporary situation, not a princi= pled one)? In general, the hard cases seem to be about statistics of one s= ort or another, "dodos on average weighed about 20kg", "dodos don't exist a= nymore" and so on. Here the single thing needed is just the bunch of all d= odos. [4] So, as an alternative, where do I learn about Haskell, whatever that is= ? Sent from my iPad On Sep 15, 2011, at 20:06, Martin Bays wrote: > * Wednesday, 2011-09-14 at 20:04 -0700 - John E Clifford : >=20 >> [1] So you would have the referent of {zo'e} be a Skolem function, >> which returns a different referent for each value of {da}, which seems >> to get the right result, the same effect could be done by either >> taking the bunch of possible x2s and picking the right one from >> context, including especially the choice of x1 >=20 > But we can see the difference between an inner existential and a Skolem > function when we consider negation. Does > {mi na klama} =3D=3D {na ku zo'u mi klama zo'e} > (if you'll grant that equivalence for now) mean "it is not true that > I go to any of [contextually relevant destinations]", or "for some > contextually relevant destination D, I do not go to D"? I think the > former, and I don't see how you'd get at it with Skolem functions. >=20 >> (remember, I am not >> convinced that {zo'e] makes any sense at all or which of its several >> senses actually works or is at work in a given case, so problems here >> are not a major issue for me). C, then, is the range of that function >> (which then is just the set of possible referents for {zo'e}). I just >> don't see the gain in throwing in another quantifier, especially given >> the problem with shifting that result. >=20 > What problem is that, sorry? >=20 >> [3] It is not clear that you have fewer superfluous entities than >> xorxes, just different ones (or, at least, different ways of >> expressing the move that seems to me to be direct). >=20 > To be clear, I have not actually made a proposal for the "ontology of > lojban" which conflicts with xorxes'. I'm not entirely happy with > xorxes', but that might be because I still don't really understand it. >=20 >> I would think that >> the way to deal with bare plurals in English (etc.) would be to use >> plurals (or Lesniewskian sets, if your are hung up that way). >> I dson't see how talking about things other than bears, even if you >> somehow get back to them eventually from these new critters, is at all >> clarifying to a simple plural. I can say that bears shit in the woods >> meaningfully and truthfully because, by and large, bears do shit in >> the woods: at least a subjective statistic and maybe even backed up by >> objective ones. What do generics add? Even if you go off into >> subjunctives, it is still bears, not bearkind you are dealing with. >> Bearkind don't shit anywhere. Or Mr. Bear. How is all that stuff >> about the number of unicorns indicating the number of unicorn horns an >> improvement on saying "Wherever there are unicorns there are unicorn >> horns" just thusly? Note, that, if this means that because unicorns >> are in the domain of discourse, then unicorns are also does not apply, >> so the principle is, in fact, not valid at the meta level, just in >> very worlds. Widespread creatures are numerous (collective property) >> and occur in lots of places (disjunctive), rare creatures are few and >> far between. No worlds, no tenses -- even spatial ones, just ordinary >> predicates. =20 >=20 > As far as I can tell, the reason for invoking Kinds is that they do, in > natural languages, satisfy predicates which can't sensibly be reduced to > instances like this - e.g. "Bears' closest living relatives are > the pinnipeds and musteloids", or "the dodo is extinct". In natural > languages, the same noun phrases are used for generic references > ("the dodo weighed around 20 kg"). Formal semanticists wanted a single > entity which could handle both uses... hence kinds. >=20 > (This is just my ill-informed impression... probably there's more to it) >=20 >> [4] I'll be happy to see whatever you have; I can use a refresher. >> [Later: looking at what you have sente suggests that you have gone >> beyond the Montague grammar to parsers and the like in languages >> I don't know. I would rather just see the Montague grammar for now, >> not the stuff built on it yet.] >=20 > Yes, it's written in Haskell rather than maths. Converting from the code > to standard logical notation would be in principle straightforward but > in practice painful and time-consuming, so I have no plans to do that. > Sorry. >=20 > Martin >=20 >> ----- 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 plu= ral=20 >> variable >>=20 >> * Wednesday, 2011-09-14 at 12:05 -0400 - John E. Clifford=20 >> : >>=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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >>> [...] >>> tI am still not clear what C is. >>=20 >> Perhaps it would clarify if I re-express it in a purely singularist way: >>=20 >> 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) >>=20 >> I confused things slightly by working with a plural semantics. >>=20 >>> [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? >>=20 >> 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}). >>=20 >>> 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). >>=20 >> I would prefer to do without them. Xorxes thinks this >> impractical/undesirable. >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >>> {pavyseljirna} btw, vs is not legal medial. >>=20 >> (thanks) >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> I wasn't saying it was true, just an example of a statement we can make >> using kinds (or properties). >>=20 >>> We can talk about widespread and rare creatures without tenses, even >>> without location tenses. >>=20 >> Without using kinds? How? >>=20 >>> I'm not sure which notation you are using, but I suppose that "cup" is >>> the avatar counting function for situations. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >>> [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. >>=20 >> Yes... many of these I'd expect to just ignore for now, or implement >> hackily and approximately. >>=20 >>> 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 >>=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) >>=20 >>> [...] >>> 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 >>=20 >> Let me ponder this. >>=20 >> Martin >>=20 >>> 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 irrelevan= t >>>>> (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 i= n one=20 >>>>> pragmatic range or the other depending on the size of the possibiliti= es. =20 >>> The=20 >>>=20 >>>>> crucial question seems to be about being grokked from context, which = seems=20 >>>>> independent of the possible answers. [mi klama] has a nearly infinit= e=20 >>> number of=20 >>>=20 >>>>> fill-ins for x2, yet in the given case is taken to be an "obvious" ca= se. Or=20 >>> is=20 >>>=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 tha= t >>>>> seems a rather big range (whatever it is, btw). >>>>=20 >>>> This would handle the case of context indicating that the {zo'e} shoul= d >>>> 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 an= y >>>>> 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, ignori= ng >>>> 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 mea= n >>>> 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 tal= k >>>> 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 come= s >>>> 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 b= e >>>> carrying around. >>>>=20 >>>> In reality, I think I'd prefer to translate the above sense of "unicor= ns >>>> 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 brod= a >>>>> 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 follo= w >>>>> 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 t= o >>>>> 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 g= ot >>>> 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 lo= t >>>>> 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 ter= m >>>> 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 tciaua= u >>>>> 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 tak= e >>>>> 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 = plural=20 >>=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 = 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 wh= at its=20 >>=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,= then=20 >>>>>> eliminate the temptation to refer to it with {zi'o}. If it is obvio= us >>>>>> 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 varie= d >>>>>> 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 c= an >>>>> 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 inferen= ce >>>>>> 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 >>>=20 >>>>>> implausible. So, I don't get what is going on here (or, rather, I d= o, but=20 >>> am=20 >>>=20 >>>>>> damned if I will give it the satisfaction of actually saying it so f= ar). >>>>>=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 easie= r >>>>>> 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 interfac= e, >>>>>> 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 (o= r >>>>> some more baroque structure along the same lines), as in Montague-sty= le >>>>> 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 wou= ld 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 th= an >>>>>> 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 >>>=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 t= he >>>>>> abstract individuals like 'chihuahuas' we've been talking about - wh= ich >>>>>> 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 tho= se >>>>>>>>> sentences without any more context. Do we agree so far? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Not entirely. I think 1E-4E could just as well be interpreted in t= he >>>>>>>> union D12 of D1 and D2 - because a sentence involving "some chihua= hua" >>>>>>>> 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 hav= e >>>>>>> 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 reaso= n >>>>>>> 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 'de= ad >>>>>> 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 individua= ls. >>>>>>=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 apar= t >>>>>> 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 b= e >>>>>> straightforwardly and clearly disambiguated. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> You seem to be saying that D12 is an intrinsically unnatural domai= n 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 wou= ld >>>>>>> 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 dom= ains >>>>>> like D12 as a matter of course, and have a new predicate correspondi= ng >>>>>> to the kind sense of "... are chihuahuas" - i.e. meaning "is >>>>>> a (non-strict) subkind of the kind 'chihuahuas'". It and {tciuaua} s= hould=20 >>> be >>>>>> mutually exclusive. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If we have a way of getting explicitly at the kind 'tciuauas', we ca= n >>>>>> then use {klesi} to get at subkinds. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> So we need something corresponding to Chierchia's down operator. Thi= s >>>>>> shouldn't be {lo'e}, because that's about genericity. I'm wondering >>>>>> whether it could indeed be {lo} - using Chierchia's type-shifting (w= hich >>>>>> is similar to Carlson's quantification over stages) to get back to >>>>>> existential quantification over instances. The crucial change from w= hat >>>>>> you've been suggesting would be that although {lo broda cu broda} wo= uld >>>>>> hold, and {lo broda} would be referring to an individual in our >>>>>> universe, it would *not* follow that this individual satisfies the x= 1 of >>>>>> {broda} in the usual sense - rather, {lo broda cu broda} would trans= form >>>>>> by type-shifting to {su'o da poi [instance-of] lo broda cu broda} (w= here >>>>>> {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 hopefu= lly >>>>>> everyone else). >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> (In fact, I *would* like to claim that 1L logically implies 2L, be= cause >>>>>>>> I would still like to analyse {zo'e} (but not {lo}) as in the subj= ect >>>>>>>> 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". A= s >>>>>>> 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 ju= st >>>>>> 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 mark= et >>>>>> 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 G= roups=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 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 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.