From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDdxKDzBBoEYi55yQ@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 07 19:03:20 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1TxV-0007xV-51; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:20 -0700 Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33sf525469pzk.1 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:10 -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=MIVbfa7uWDsNuLpRRlvtc8QEt2dMq8WJQLZOpaDYFkY=; b=ZXqGjAt5EkvD8sRrZwpCZ0GHI2iF6FLeHhuuLToEDuUfzciBJWQqcfZ9XQGiTaaLfv MwdkyDzfknWxn/VyZm4hjKXNb6pMlCxsDBYFmKchRT2rmT6Q4z44LweEYBdt3ue96qy+ s7Zn+R5+5oGYaht2SsijMiMJCW4DnQg9a38hk= Received: by 10.68.5.9 with SMTP id o9mr40920pbo.38.1315447389271; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.155.210 with SMTP id vy18ls9207839pbb.2.gmail; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.13.100 with SMTP id g4mr104219pbc.25.1315447388529; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.13.100 with SMTP id g4mr104218pbc.25.1315447388519; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si4500217pbb.1.2011.09.07.19.03.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:03:08 -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 p88237hk010703 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 02:03:08 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1R1TxL-0000To-Ig for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:03:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 22:03:07 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Message-ID: <20110908020307.GK30833@gonzales> References: <20110907030141.GA30833@gonzales> <20110908003133.GJ30833@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+" 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: , --vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 21:47 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 20:31 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > >> > >> - xu do klama lo zarci > [...] > >> - ro ma'a klama > >> > >> "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? >=20 > I was still thinking in terms of possible answers to "xu do klama lo > zarci". In such a context, I would take the referents for "zo'e" in > "ro ma'a klama [zo'e]" to be the same as for "lo zarci". Ah. So in other contexts, {ro ma'a klama} could be true without the destinations being the same for different referents of {ma'a}? But only because you'd have the zo'e mean the generic "destinations"? > >> "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. >=20 > I agree that (without any more context to suggest otherwise) it's > true, but you won't like my reason why, because it gives a generic > referent to "zo'e". You're right, I really don't like it. If you introduce such generics, it seems that it becomes impossible to unambigously specify order of quantifiers. This, surely, is a Very Bad Thing. I mean: you seem to be suggesting that for any broda(x,y) and any domain of discourse M, there should be another plausible domain of discourse *M extending M and an element *y \in *M such that \forall x\in M. (\exists y\in M. broda(x,y) =3D> broda(x,~y) ). But then if I do say {su'o de ro da zo'u da broda de}, it could be that I'm working in M and really mean to make the strong assertion M satisfies \exists y. \forall x. broda(x,y) , or I could be working in *M and hence be claiming only M satisfies \forall x. \exists y. broda(x,y) . The only way to tell which I meant would be informal rules about saying things in the least confusing way. So no, I don't think such tricks should be resorted to unless absolutely necessary - and if they do prove necessary, I'd think it a problem with the language. > > 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}. >=20 > I don't give it any kind of scope, since I don't think constants have > scope. But if you do need to force constants to be quantified, then > yes, I would have to favour longest over shortest. What's the alternative to scope? I thought we agreed earlier today that zo'e isn't literally a constant in general, e.g. it has to scope inside {da} in the above example. Martin --vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5oIlsACgkQULC7OLX7LNaOBwCfXhNFZHQ1AcN/tfG1v7viUxYM 6uYAn2F5/UerMbJSuUM+46/dA6Q8JAGl =IY4U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+--