* Friday, 2011-09-23 at 13:14 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> I'm not sure what {pi za'u} might mean. I suppose the default is
> either 0 or 1, so not that different from {pisu'o} after all. What
> did you mean to say?
> {pi su'o lo broda} is an u specified subbunch but, if a quantifier,
> it, like {pi ro lo}, is over the domain of only lo broda. Oh! Just
> saw the point of {za'u}, assuming that it's default is 0. But then
> I don't understand {su'o pi za'u} as adding anything.
The {su'o} before the {pi} was just to explicitly make it an existential
quantifier... of course it's a horrible abuse of {pi}, which is meant to
be a decimal point, but not a new abuse.
So {su'o pi za'u ko'a}, which might or might not be the same as just {pi
za'u}, would mean "one or more subbunches of ko'a", where a subbunch of
ko'a is a sum aka plurality aka bunch (I understand these all to mean
the same things, and to agree with Chierchia's setup, at least modulo
the intensionality issues below) the atoms below which are also below
ko'a; i.e. it is any ko'e such that ko'e me ko'a, if {me} is our Among
relation.
In other words, {su'o pi za'u ko'a} would be the plural quantifier
\exists X AMONG ko'a
> Yes, bunches can include things from various worlds because domains
> often contain such: we talk about imaginary things and past things and
> so on, all not from this world but some other. This world only has
> what exists in this world in it. There is a much longer way of laying
> this out, but that is the gist. We need this to make general claims
> (along with other reasons), since we often want to generalize not just
> about the current whatevers but about past and future ones as well.
Naturally.
But the way I'm understanding the tense system, {lo} and {zo'e} would
only ever get evaluated *after* we've selected a world.
e.g. {mi ka'e citka lo blaci} means that in some possible world I eat
something which is glass *in that possible world*, i.e. it means
something like (ignoring all subtleties of {lo} for a moment)
\exists w. \exists b. (blaci_w(b) /\ citka_w(mi,b))
(where the first quantifier is over worlds, and the second quantifier is
over the domain, and blaci_w and citka_w are the interepretations of
blaci in the world w, being relations on the domain).
I really don't see how it could work any other way. Could you explain in
detail how you see it doing so?
Martin
Attachment:
pgpr8AzH3bmnD.pgp
Description: PGP signature