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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> But forgetting about the formalism for a second, surely you'd agree that
> "lions are in my garden" is logically equivalent to "one or more lions
> are in my garden" in every reasonable sense? In particular, that you can
> deduce each from the other?
>
> It's part of the basic underlying theory of english semantics, if you
> like.

I think in English a plain "lions are in my garden" may require two or
more lion manifestations, no? But on the other hand something like "I
stay away from home whenever lions are in my garden" probably includes
single-lion occasions too. In Lojban that issue would not arise
anyway.

> If we have models where this equivalence fails, like the one you mention
> which has Lion but no lion instances, then our models are failing to
> model this basic underlying theory.
>
> It's in that sense that I'd consider them deficient.

Of course, whenever you need to consider lion manifestations, you need
a domain of discourse with lion manifestations, there's no way around
that. So if your starting point is that lion manifestations are
needed, any model without them won't cover it.


> So in response to your original remark
>
>> >> (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.
>
> : yes, were we to have a setup like the one you sketch above, then
> just as with kinds, a model in which "John sat there" is true had better
> have an actual John-stage which actually sits there.
>
> The only reason that I wasn't raising this objection was because
> I wasn't assuming a setup with stages.

Exactly. You don't need to assume a setup with stages (and I fully
agree), but apparently you do feel that a setup with manifestations is
always necessary (while I don't).

> Unless you really think it's necessary, I'd prefer to avoid getting into
> the details of handling space and time for now. But briefly: I'm
> currently thinking we should handle neither with the stage approach, and
> rather both with the worlds approach (so a "world" would actually be
> a co-ordinate (possible world, time, space)). An argument for another
> day, perhaps!

In lots of cases we don't need to get anywhere near space and time. If
we want to say something like "travel is good for the soul", any
connection with space-time is remote and of little relevance. We can
just say "lo nu litru cu xamgu lo pruxi" and not concern ourselves
with travel manifestations or soul manifestations.

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.