[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 5/23/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't see why
>
> ro lo mapku cu melbi gi'e ku'i du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri
>
> (ku'i ro lo mapku du'emei do'e lo nu mi bevri)
>
> wouldn't work if
>
> lo ro...
>
> does.
¨
{ro lo broda cu brode} says that each of the referents
of broda satisfies the predicate {brode}.
{lo ro broda cu brode} says that the referent(s) of
{lo ro broda} satisfy the predicate {brode}, it doesn't
specify whether together or individually.
> I also don't see how you can be converting it into a
> mass automatically.
.
No, there is no conversion. {lo} is not marked for
distributivity/nondistributivity.
Oh, yes, I had forgotten that your {lo} wasn't. Overall I don't think
that it's a good idea to have {lo} not marked. More thought should be
given to it before including the English form found in:
"The students wore hats and surrounded the building"
Much better English starting-points would have been:
"The students wore hats and, together, surrounded the building"
"Together, the men carried the piano"
We don't need to allow this sort of ambiguity - the word "together"
need not be 3 syllables in Lojban. But let's put that aside for now,
and consider your version. You should be able to say the following:
{??? nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno}
e1: individually, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano.
e2: individually, all of the group of two men carried the piano
e3: together, two (and only two) of the group of two men carried the piano.
e4: together, all of the group of two men carried the piano
additionally, there are now e5 and e6, which are the respective
"ambiguous" versions.
1-4 I would say are:
1: {re lo vo nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno}
2: {ro lo vo ...}
3: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o re lo vo ...}
4: {ro loi vo ...} / {lu'o ro lo vo ...}
But no! {lo} does not specify "distributivity". So 1 could mean 3, and
2 could mean 4 (based on context I guess). Right? No. It seems that
you ... can't have an explicit inner if you want to be ambiguous? So,
for {lo}, inner = ambig, outer = individual - so never mind this whole
"outer quantifiers are used to make statements about only certain
members of a group defined by the inner quantifier" thing? No, I don't
see the sense or consistency in your interpretation.
Forget distributivity/non distributivity. Before we even consider
them, we have to agree on this: the inner says "this is the quantity
of the group that I am referring to", and the outer says "this is the
number of that group that I am going to say something about". And now
we can go about saying something about them, like if they're going to
be seen as a group or not. Here's how I interpret various referential
statements (noun phrases): (L = lo/le)
{L cribe} - "some/all of the bears"
some number of some contextually sensible set of bears
{L vo cribe} - "some of the four bears"
some of the set of (contextually sensible) four bears
{vo L cribe} - "four of the bears"
four of the most contextually sensible set of bears
{L ro cribe} - "some/all of bears"
some of *all* bears
{ro L cribe} - "all of the bears"
all of some contextually sensible group ("all the hats were...")
{vo L ro cribe} - "four of bears"
(only) four of *all* bears
{ro L vo cribe} - "all of the four bears"
all four out of the set of (contextually sensible) four bears
If the lo/le were loi/lei, then this would mean that whatever these
referents were - bears, pianos, men, whatever - they're now just
component parts of some unspecified singular entity:
{ro loi ci nanmu cu bevri lo pa pipno}
{ro lo ci nanmu} are component parts of *singular* X. X carries the piano.
"the thing that is made up of all of three men carries the piano"
Which leaves {lu'o}. I interpret it to be a transient attribution of
this "as a mass":
{lu'o [ro lo mapku] cu [du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri] gi'e ku'i [melbi]}
"together, [all of the hats] [were too heavy for me to carry], but
[were beautiful]"
and {lu'a}, which seems a very hackish way to do the reverse:
{lu'a [ro loi mapku] cu [melbi] gi'e ku'i [du'e mei do'e lo nu mi bevri]}
"individually/'split into component parts', [the thing composed of
all of the hats] [were beautiful], but [were too heavy for me to
carry]"
"individually, all the hats were beautiful, but were too heavy for me to carry"
although I'd much rather just ditch {lu'a} (and {loi}), and have:
all the hats were beautiful, but *they-together* were too heavy for me to carry
together, all the hats were too heavy for me to carry, but (they)
were beautiful
which seems to solve the distrib/nondistrib problems that have come up.
I think that what I describe above is a very sensible and consistent
way to see this aspect of the language. Perhaps you now agree? If not,
then perhaps I'm mistaken when I see this as the better
interpretation. So I'll ask, how does your interpretation/version of
Lojban handle all of this? I'd specifically like to know how you
interpret each of these:
{lo cribe}
{lo vo cribe}
{vo lo cribe}
{lo ro cribe}
{ro lo cribe}
{vo lo ro cribe}
{ro lo vo cribe}
If a consistent statement regarding what a loi does in each of these
can't be provided, then:
{loi cribe}
{loi vo cribe}
{vo loi cribe}
{loi ro cribe}
{ro loi cribe}
{vo loi ro cribe}
{ro loi vo cribe}
And finally, what {lu'a} and {lu'o} mean to you, if they mean anything.
> x1 is the mass formed from set x2 with member(s) x3
>
> If {ro L_ ci mapku} was placed in x1, I would take it to mean that
> each hat was a mass individually. You'd need a {lu'o} or something of
> the sort.
Right, with an outer quantifier it would say that each
fits the predicate by itself.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.