From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDmmaDzBBoEzSYExw@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 07 17:31:45 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1SWs-00056E-9d; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:44 -0700 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33sf410981pzk.1 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:36 -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=1naUumV2ndBqPJ15WPuPrPqaUC7HNQJ2wcjibGxaQQ8=; b=g8myNSumwK17Rt1IX4IExT2lZatawIqn14zO2vjgMdmwP24ossTWDqC+u3M4iZ8+rH cw/j0LSXy3lGqy0gWMZ+zc+vCGtOoXJkOJjEZsGHAr93uY5J3vo2Xjvnoofjw9Pfa/jd STEJ70YHA7tNvPdsbfvOWV0XpVIQp8juiwy7k= Received: by 10.68.36.3 with SMTP id m3mr7196pbj.83.1315441894498; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.34.164 with SMTP id a4ls8974527pbj.1.gmail; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.66.233 with SMTP id i9mr42165pbt.28.1315441893892; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.66.233 with SMTP id i9mr42163pbt.28.1315441893882; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll18si4249777pbb.0.2011.09.07.17.31.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:31:33 -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 p880VXGT019876 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:31:33 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1R1SWj-0006pG-2N for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:31:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:31:33 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Message-ID: <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: , --LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 20:31 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > 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 > "zo'e" can have an irrelevant or an obvious value. Close-scope > existential quantification may perhaps substitute zo'e in cases of > irrelevant values, but not in cases of obvious values: >=20 > - xu do klama lo zarci > - mi klama >=20 > That's "I go [there]", not "I go [somewhere]". Point taken. But given the nebulosity of obviousness, as far as assigning boolean truth values to sentences goes, there arguably isn't a difference between "obvious things" and "some things". There's also the point that if you make an existential claim, you generally will have a witness in mind; if you don't expect the witness to be obvious, it would be friendly to specify it. Grice would agree, maybe. > Or: >=20 > -mi na klama >=20 > "I don't go (there)", not "I don't go (anywhere)". >=20 > Or: >=20 > - ro ma'a klama >=20 > "All of us go (there)", not "each of us go [somewhere]". Oh, really? Would you actually say that {ro ma'a klama} is false were the destinations to be different? I thought not, hence the close scope. > "zo'e" is just like "mi", "do", "ti", "ta", "tu"... only much more > open ended as to what referents it can pick up from the context of the > utterance. There are scope issues, though... e.g. if you agree that {zo'e se fetsi ro da poi mamta} is true (which maybe, given your examples above, you actually don't), the zo'e has to scope inside the da. It sounds like you might be giving it longest scope rather than shortest, which gets around that kind of issue... though it still has to scope inside the da in {ro da zo'u broda zo'e noi brode da}. Martin --LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5oDOUACgkQULC7OLX7LNaDXgCggghnPb3m4mV4CukNKXGJJ8kR OisAoLKHme6mgokxS2fiCPmUi4tyonSA =Lf06 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1--