* Thursday, 2011-09-22 at 19:39 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> 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
Well OK, maybe we aren't agreeing on how {mei} works.
Nor gunmas. Allowing gerku gunmas to gerku would cause the same kind of
quantification problems we saw with kinds... I suppose you want to skirt
these problems by further restricting common domains?
> > 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
Well actually... aren't {pi ro} and {pi su'o} plural quantifiers?
> ).
> And I agree that a plural constant cannot be a witness for the
> singular existential quantifier.
Great. I think we actually do see eye to eye as regards plurals. One in
the nose for those who claim these discussions never come to anything,
eh? Or at least it will be once it gets written up (which I still think
slightly premature)...
> So you would be saying that "lo pa klesi be lo gerku" is to be treated
> as plural?
Assuming that gives a kind: not *as* a plural, but *like* a plural as
regards singular quantification.
In particular, I'd guess that using a singular quantifier on a kind
should resolve as quantification over instances of the kind.
(And if it's a kind of kinds... over the union of the instances of the
kinds, I guess)
> >> 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"?
Not as I'm currently thinking I'd like to understand anaphora, no. That
would be almost or exactly equivalent to {re da tuple lo remna} - the
only possible difference being that since {lo remna} is in the scope of
the {re da} in the latter, it possibly should get interpreted twice with
possibly different results. But that isn't the issue we were talking
about.
(Although JC and I are talking about it elsewhere in another strand of
this tangled thread, re the skina example)
Generally: I'm still basically hoping for the Nirvana Conjecture
I mentioned earlier, even once (at least simple cases of) anaphora are
included. In those terms, we're talking here about the meaning of
predications some of whose arguments are zo'e-expressions - which is
a second stage of processing after all anaphora etc are resolved.
I think.
> > 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
Yes, could be.
Alternatively, how about having {pi ro} quantify over subkinds, such
that {lo smoka cu cmamau pi ro lo taxfu poi na'e smoka klesi} works?
> Would you agree that "lo se danlu cu klesi lo danlu"?
I don't know... it might be nice, for purposes like the above, to have
{klesi} hold *only* of kinds - and I think selda'u should be mundanes.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpuMdc_fzmGb.pgp
Description: PGP signature