Received: from mail-qc0-f185.google.com ([209.85.216.185]:50374) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WaO73-0006Ys-Fc; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:59 -0700 Received: by mail-qc0-f185.google.com with SMTP id c9sf2380850qcz.2 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pZ30NTcZiC/oICOgS+V0Mc2bAknTeANuEMQjnsAYxBE=; b=eLoR0WERA5Eeaw/8GM/7G2UD9LGq4SJzBpV674ppfCnkKfYXkesLNrxLOqw6rh5HDt 4jEz4LunQkySS1vsCCmhUxQXilmfChQ/mAF9OoYyRu3X67Gl7uEzBK7ERzEd3YCDusSe WVXaE9cxXdMBsi25sAeaaXDNmkl3lxu4Y1tciGuCb7EF0AJJvwOp3RRs5RqLPXZmAifL f2bUClWkHyChXBVhNY2pH8lk3ejQL3/yuRdmQlfy4BNrCZAQo7a5F6/UJF6f4Hn/xkwc Kj/Ir2XwSTsTSYdCJFQ8CPmIRbA+imZTsI3KLMgYYzAuen81RKIfQIzMPJjLs2x5bXPD 5gTA== X-Received: by 10.183.1.7 with SMTP id bc7mr78583obd.0.1397648078724; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.40.228 with SMTP id a4ls177220obl.92.gmail; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.196.8 with SMTP id ii8mr3676067obc.5.1397648078408; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d8si5473862vdv.2.2014.04.16.04.34.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230; Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id db11so10374201veb.21 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.13.104 with SMTP id g8mr2012679vec.16.1397648078290; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.170.73 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140416033332.GB22304@mercury.ccil.org> References: <65681E0F06A2403AAC6713EF4CDA8A70@gmail.com> <58E8BA240FB54E808597BB8826FB9ED3@gmail.com> <20140416033332.GB22304@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:34:38 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] pi PA broda From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e73863a43cb04f7274d75 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 4506 --047d7b2e73863a43cb04f7274d75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:33 AM, John Cowan wrote= : > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas scripsit: > > > I'm not sure there ever was a consensus on whether "pi mu lo broda" mea= ns > > half a broda or half the brodas. > > I would interpret it as "half a broda", and use "pi mu loi broda" for > "half the brodas". The thing is that outer quantifiers normally quantify bridi: how many are true out of the bridis obtained by replacing the values from the domain of the quantifier into the bound variable. This outer "pi mu" would be sommething completely different. It would not be saying that half the bridis are true (much less that half of a bridi is true), but that there is a true bridi when one of the values of the domain (just one?) is somehow halved and the result is used as a value for the bound variable. Also, distinguishing lo and loi is problematic in cases like "pi mu ko'a". When ko'a has many referents, does it behave like lo or like loi? Do we have to keep track of how those referents were assigned to ko'a? (In a siingularist aproach where ko'a can only take one referent at a time, and a mass is just another single thing, this is less of a deal, but then you can't have ko'a surrounding a building while standing on one leg.) mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --047d7b2e73863a43cb04f7274d75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:33 AM, John Cowan <= cowan@mercury.c= cil.org> wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas scripsit:

> I'm not sure there ever was a consensus on whether "pi mu lo = broda" means
> half a broda or half the brodas.

I would interpret it as "half a broda", and use "pi mu= loi broda" for
"half the brodas".

The thing is t= hat outer quantifiers normally quantify bridi: how many are true out of the= bridis obtained by replacing the values from the domain of the quantifier = into the bound variable. This outer "pi mu" would be sommething c= ompletely different. It would not be saying that half the bridis are true (= much less that half of a bridi is true), but that there is a true bridi whe= n one of the values of the domain (just one?) is somehow halved and the res= ult is used as a value for the bound variable.

Also, distinguishing lo and loi is problematic in cases= like "pi mu ko'a". When ko'a has many referents, does it= behave like lo or like loi? Do we have to keep track of how those referent= s were assigned to ko'a? (In a siingularist aproach where ko'a can = only take one referent at a time, and a mass is just another single thing, = this is less of a deal, but then you can't have ko'a surrounding a = building while standing on one leg.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7b2e73863a43cb04f7274d75--