From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDs853zBBoERYH4qA@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 07 07:04:41 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1Ik0-0005W7-4Z; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:41 -0700 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33sf16356637pzk.1 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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; bh=n448qhQMJzPRKXh0siC2th2boey1MePq7H3L9hrxY/c=; b=dy1FnQoJLJi6Pzr/b2LgfE/4I6/iEIPK3SvjYihpj9b7VD6Bu2ffv4eHCyB1Zkr0cp V6TXAYJhIICuvdM9CAXs/UkN7PSoPxp0HpuaBm6Q5l6z5NRjPd1vLq8nxiy9Qeo4tU0N pS68Nsd5MBNzkoV9tWsJwxO5DRzYsamS6ns1Y= Received: by 10.68.6.136 with SMTP id b8mr416441pba.37.1315404268550; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.218.14 with SMTP id q14ls7095501wfg.3.gmail; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.23.72 with SMTP id k8mr3935383pbf.19.1315404267770; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.23.72 with SMTP id k8mr3935382pbf.19.1315404267760; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si2865672pbb.1.2011.09.07.07.04.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p87E4RwE009692 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:04:27 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1R1Ijq-0006Fi-Sw for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:04:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:04:26 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: jboste Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Message-ID: <20110907140426.GB30833@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: kecti User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org 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: , --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Tuesday, 2011-09-06 at 23:01 -0400 - Martin Bays : > e.g. {zo'e broda ro da zo'e noi brode da} -> > \forall x. \exists X. \exists Y. (brode(Y, x) /\ broda(X, x, Y)) >=20 > Generally, the quantifiers for the {zo'e}s would be inside any singular > quantifiers, and similarly inside any negation negation could be controversial, thinking about it... {mi na gerku} and {zo'e na se gerku mi} do become \not \exists X. gerku(mi, X), but I think we want {lo plise cu na kukte} and hence {zo'e noi plise cu na kukte} to be \exists X. (plise(X) /\ \not kukte(X)). In which case, it seems this kind of analysis of {zo'e} is inconsistent with {lo}=3D=3D{zo'e noi}. Other than that, it seems to work... which tempts me to suggest that {lo}=3D=3D{zo'e noi} just isn't quite right. > or tense quantification > etc. >=20 > Any problem with this? As far as I can see, it explains all common usage > of {zo'e} - and also of {lo} and {le} with their {zo'e (n|v)oi} > interpretations. >=20 > Martin --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5neeoACgkQULC7OLX7LNauNwCfdQhjLk5xlxqImBk4Zl7OAP6c 4FgAoKFlGGF44nAwAdYwyvAQmpRTgVMq =mQ1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2--