From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC6-uLzBBoEpTEDsQ@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 20 09:20:22 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R633S-00055H-3E; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:20:21 -0700 Received: by yih13 with SMTP id 13sf849197yih.16 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:20:12 -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=bcyrcNWUbXhf2MxqHXk0EoDvpJx6IMHDYcI7Ya/ruEY=; b=CTEoiXARcFD35yobKs22WnEV4Bvy3AEcVeEFmSf2f8+XZxUpullWcBlGNJnQhCZJBc o8JcBY7FRXgm9S82GeDOUQXWULyltaY/ePjA60OuAWKHHVyDwgVqj62iINi+BfZEpSJu vs7fce11MU0bbBIPaSpxdqCO12tcUpKqZzkMM= Received: by 10.150.133.13 with SMTP id g13mr245265ybd.67.1316535610724; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:20:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.127.12 with SMTP id z12ls2472608agc.0.gmail; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.189.68 with SMTP id b44mr4704908yhn.2.1316535588496; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.189.68 with SMTP id b44mr4704906yhn.2.1316535588484; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm16-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm16-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.236.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u30si518887yhu.7.2011.09.20.09.19.48; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.19; Received: from [66.94.237.201] by nm16.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2011 16:19:48 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.106] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2011 16:19:48 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Sep 2011 16:19:48 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 157185.211.bm@omp1011.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 9901 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Sep 2011 16:19:48 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: iPf_F7oVM1kiK5rV_yG5MDi_n9MfF8Lh.42N6KFTRBRm8Xd J47n2Xk9WNwVqjwGXq_V5jro2zG_UGbf94e0KTaersBy77SEchrAbLihnlhw YeIdsaItjaeZUQOZgafjxTZPTFeDexGVfCSXDgK.Ad8OogQnVdw4SrLWh7r3 dxv0uPy4aWJJoxJs0cmdW.rX1LdtTS.n6krB9Lidh..MjYNcYHSMq67pc8ia T0bQgZLGaW6u5uXiowhR7x5Pf9I3q74FVtyvrf3B7GlT1smk4DgGyCkDpSX7 eRsUX9gbl64X8PVgdl_jWdwt9B8BFR19S5y2AEojUYQ.txv_sahop6Mb8gFa jwfOVUuk2R_ZskYGibjZbswZNzxPe5pOkuTIskAqUgp3K9U1I1O5mDWPm4Zq FnOT.tiMoqy0E6W0HKzTRGanpsEmNyGUR9GY.5jDJATnXeoE81plEywxVxON z4K9Uehym_7lb3hVfT2sPgI8qZXkOqmIr3zepdVl904XOSmMBm2EcZvzb49h xv1Pi9BpBQS_J.2E1cxyWk4IqMoPukkAj Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:47 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625 References: <20110914041335.GO28088@gonzales> <55EFAEEE-10A9-4002-951E-7BD949DC29F7@yahoo.com> <20110914232007.GC6492@gonzales> <1316055853.22283.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110916000632.GD7274@gonzales> <20110918172927.GA4310@gonzales> <20110918213323.GB6878@gonzales> <20110919013653.GC6878@gonzales> Message-ID: <1316535587.5338.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:19:47 -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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.19 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 We seem to be in a three-way cross-purpose conversation. As far as I can= =20 understand, for xorxes {lo broda} refers to broda-kind, a something or othe= r=20 (xorxes has always had trouble when we get down to defining it) which has= =20 individual brodas as manifestations (avatars, etc.). MB seems usually to t= hink=20 {lo broda} is down up broda, the set (C-?) of brodas assigned to the world = of=20 the present conversation by the function which is the meaning of {broda}. w= hich=20 world he seems also to define in a fairly restricted way, a situation. I t= hink=20 {lo broda} refers to a L-set of brodas (or just a bunch of them, without th= e=20 set-talk) selected by the context. When it comes to using these different= =20 definitions, we generally get about the same results, but some definitions= =20 appear to require more mechanisms than others. (I have passed over xorxes'= =20 insistence on bringing in person segments necessarily along with persons an= d his=20 contrarian refusal to have brodas along with broda kind in the universe of = a=20 discussion). They are also terminologically unified in that both MB 's and = my=20 view would hold that the maximal set of brodas in a given situation is=20 broda-kind in that situation, the gulf from xorxes is merely a matter the= =20 difference between things among a kind and manifestations of a kind. For M= B,=20 this difference requires particular quantifiers that xorxes does not need; = for=20 me, it requires different ways that a bunch of things may satisfy a predica= te=20 (which we need already for other cases). This now projects onto questions = about=20 {zo'e}, which, insofar as it is anaphoric, usually anaphorizes a {lo}=20 expression, and, in another role (of at least three), is used in the=20 Lojban-internal definition of {lo}. Perhaps coming to some agreement on th= is=20 fundamental difference can get us forwarder. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, September 19, 2011 5:17:10 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural= =20 variable On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Would you accept that "Lions are ruining my garden" is a reasonable > possible translation of {lo cinfo cu ca daspo lo mi purdi}? Yes. > Would you agree with Chierchia (Ch98 p.364) that "Lions are ruining my > garden" means that there exist some lions which are ruining my garden? Only in the sense that "I am in my garden" means that there exists some stage of me that is now in my garden. So yes, but not really. It is a posible explanation of the meaning, but in terms of things that were never mentioned. When I say "lions are ruining my garden" I don't really mean to bring individual lion manifestations into the picture, just as when I say "I am in my garden" I don't mean to bring stages of me into the picture. > If so - that's the kind of existential quantification which we don't see > with {mi} or {ti}. {lo cinfo cu ca na daspa lo mi purdi} has to have as > as a meaning that no lions are destroying my garden. No, it doesn't have to bring individual lions into the picture. It just says that if my garden is being ruined, it must be by something other than lions, or that if lions are ruining something, it must be something other than my garden, or if lions are doing something to my garden, it must be something other than ruining it, and so on. You may infer from it that no lion is ruining my garden, but that's not what it means. > Could it be that our only point of disagreement here is that you'd > prefer to leave {lo cinfo} as a Kind, and have a later stage of > processing do the conversion to (in this case) an existential, while I'm > suggesting we skip the Kind stage? I don't want to introduce at any point an existential claim about individual lions. (If you do, you must then make exceptions for intensional contexts.) > Actually that can't quite be the only point of disagreement, as I'd want > an existential or generic reading of {lo} to be allowed in cases when > there's also a pure-Kind reading - e.g. "I don't like lions" vs > "I don't like some lions" vs "I don't like generic lions", all meaning > quite different things; if {lo cinfo} in {mi na nelci lo cinfo} returned > a Kind, it seems we'd have no way of accessing the latter two meanings, > since the first would take priority. Yes, "I don't like lions" takes priority. It could also mean "I don't like the lions" in a context where we already have some individual lions in the domain of discourse. > Let me make that a question: do you consider "there are some lions such > that I don't like them" to be an interpretation of {mi na nelci lo > cinfo}? If so, how do you obtain it? That would have to be "su'o da poi cinfo zo'u mi na nelci da" or equivalently "mi na nelci ro cinfo" or "mi nelci me'i cinfo" or "mi nelci su'o cinfo na ku" or "su'o cinfo na se nelci mi". mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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 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.