[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Well, lo blabi gerku is klesi only collectively, and lo blabi gerku is gerku
conjunctively, so to make this work, we would have to indicate in the the {lo}
phrase that its construction was collective and the gerku was conjunctive: "the
things I have in mind whi8ch are collectively a class are individually dogs"
It is false that all duos are not dog duos, the ones earlier cited for example.
You just have to keep the relation to the predicate clear. Oh, I see you madr
that point more or less.
I am unclear why Lojban quantifiers have to be singular and which plurals can be
evidence for particular quantfiers, but then, I tend to switch back and forth
between plurals and bunches.
I am unconvinced by Chirechia's talk about plurals and even less convinced that
it has anything useful to say strainghtout about the cases in Lojban.
My objection as a logician is always to basing anything on ambiguity (hence my
worry about {zo'e}.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, September 22, 2011 5:39:37 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
variable
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Wednesday, 2011-09-21 at 19:08 -0300 - Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
>> >> ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
>
>> The problem with saying it is false is that if "lo blabi gerku
>> cu klesi lo gerku" is true, and "lo blabi gerku cu gerku" is also
>> true, it's hard to say why at least "su'o klesi be lo gerku cu gerku"
>> would not be true.
>
> But we already have the same kind of weirdness with plurals:
> lo gerku remei cu remei .i je lo gerku remei cu gerku .i je ku'i ro
> remei na ku gerku remei
.i su'o boi re mei ja'a gerku re mei .i mu'a lo gunma be lo re gerku
be'o noi re mei cu gerku re mei
> Generally: you can't quantify over plurals (assuming we agree to the
> extent I'm under the impression we do on how plurals work); not being
> able to quantify kinds is a similar kind of restriction.
I do think we agree that Lojban quantifiers are singular (you could
quantify over plurals with plural quantifiers, which Lojban apparently
doesn't have).
And I agree that a plural constant cannot be a witness for the
singular existential quantifier.
So you would be saying that "lo pa klesi be lo gerku" is to be treated
as plural?
>> It could. So in your system "lo du'u ko'a ckaji lo ka broda na nibli
>> lo du'u ko'a broda" is true, right?
>
> Depends what you mean... for any predicate broda, I would want that to
> be false. But {se tuple re da} is not just a predicate in the above uses
> - it introduces an existential, and (part of) the question is what scope
> that existential has. Stuffing it inside a {lo ka} prevents it from
> scoping over the {lo remna}.
For me "lo remna" is a constant, so there is no scoping over it. What about:
lo remna zo'u re da zo'u da tuple ry
"As for humans, there are two things that be-leg them."
Would that be enough to keep your "lo remna" outside the scope of "re"?
> But wait, I was missing something obvious.
>
> You can still use {lo}:
> {ro da poi na'e xanto se danlu zo'u lo xanto cu bramau lo tumla danlu be da}.
Sure, that works too. Most predicates don't come with a built-in
subkind place though:
lo smoka cu cmamau ro drata taxfu
But you could appeal to fi'o klesi:
ro da poi na'e smoka klesi lo taxfu zo'u lo smoka cu cmamau lo taxfu
be fi'o klesi da
Would you agree that "lo se danlu cu klesi lo danlu"?
>> At this point
>> we seem to have different results for at least some cases.
>
> You mean the question of whether a pure-kind predication can block an
> existential or generic reading?
(I was thinking of the issue of what things can or cannot be values of
singular variables.)
> This does seem a fairly minor issue. If we could agree that {lo} is
> ambiguous between those three things with the property case taking
> precedence when it makes sense, I'd be happy.
I prefer the Carlson/Chierchia analysis where it is not ambiguous, but
since we end up getting the same results, that one does seem to be a
minor issue.
> (well, not wholly happy until I understood how the generic predication
> case works, and how to unambiguously make generic predications... but
> that's another issue)
>
> This precedence issue aside, and the kind-quantification issue also
> aside, are there any sentences for which your understanding of {lo}
> gives meanings different from those given by the ambiguity-based
> approach?
I don't know enough to answer that. So far the one major difference
seems to be the quantification over subkinds cases.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.