Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Well, the current xorlo proposal explicitly has a lo inside a quantifier
> ignoring the quantifier:
>
> """
> Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a
> constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it
> refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order
> in which the constant term appears with respect to a
> negation or with respect to a quantified term will not
> change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is
> something that always keeps the same referent or
> referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas.
> """
>
> The possibility of {ro da lo broda be da brode} makes it impossible to
> take the above paragraph wholly literally. xorxes at least seemed to
> want this to be the only exception.

Yes, that paragraph was meant to describe terms without any unbound
variables. It should be obvious that a term containing an unbound
variable cannot be moved outside the scope of the quantifier that
binds that variable. The point was just that "lo" does not introduce
any new hidden quantifier that would itself prevent moving it out of
the scope of another quantifier.

> In xorxes' system, however, things aren't really as simple as this talk
> of constancy might make them seem. According to my current understanding
> of xorxes' system: the constant given by {lo} is often a kind,

Yes.

> and kind
> predication often resolves as existential quantification.

Meaning that you can reexpress some predications about kinds that
don't involve existential quantification as a predication about
instances of the kind that do involve existential quantification. Yes,
I agree you can do that (for a certain type of predication). Where we
seem to desagree is in thinking that this "resolution" is somehow a
necessary step in the interpretation of the original predication. You
seem to be saying that a domain of discourse that includes a kind but
not its instances is somehow defective. (But at the same time you have
no objection to domains that include an individual but not its stages,
although there are analogous types of predications about individuals
that can be resolved as existential quantification over stages.)

> When the kind
> predication is within the scope of a quantifier, the domain of the
> existential quantification can vary.

And the same thing happens when predication about an individual is
within the scope of a quantifier.

> So for example, I think the skina sentence actually does make sense in
> xorxes' system, contrary to my first impressions. It's roughly of the
> form
>
> {ro skina zo'u co'e lo so'i se cusku}
>
> which becomes, in hopefully understandable notation,
>
> FA s:skina(s). co'e(KIND X:(cusku(zo'e,X) /\ so'imei(X)))
>
> (X a plural variable, i.e. not restricted to atoms)
> and the kind predication gets in this case an existential reading:
>
> FA s:skina(s). EX X\in C_s. co'e(X),
>    where FA X\in C_s. (cusku(zo'e,X) /\ so'imei(X)))
>
> xorxes would probably dispute the exact form of that last step, but
> would I think agree with the basic idea that the witnesses can depend on
> s.

You could also say that in "Every time I go to see a movie, I run into
John", the stage of John that I run into can (and indeed will) depend
on s. But you don't feel compelled to resolve the John sentence into
John stages the same way you feel compelled to resolve the dialogue
sentence into dialogue instances. All I'm saying is that in the
dialogue sentence there is no mention of dialogue instances in the
same way that in the John sentence there is no mention of John stages,
even though you could zoom in into those if you really wanted to.

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.