[lojban] Re: xorlo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The
> English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".
> What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.

But it does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfoñd dlfhi" has no meaning, but
"lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a
situation of carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried
thing(s) are specific things the speaker has in mind and that they
describe as pianos.

> With the addition
> of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
> possible meanings are
> "A man carries the piano(s)"
> "Some men carry the piano(s)"
> "Many men carry the piano(s)"
> "Most men carry the piano(s)"
> "All men carry the piano(s)"
> et cetera,

I don't think so. You seem to be saying that grammatical sentences in
English do have meaning, but grammatical sentences in Lojban don't
have meaning until we can decide which English sentence we would use
to describe the same situation. The English sentence "A man carries
the piano" doesn't tell you what color the piano is, so in what sense
is that more meaningful than "lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno", which
doesn't tell you how many pianos (or of what color) are involved? In
some context, "a piano" may refer to a black piano, but that doesn't
mean "a piano" doesn't have meaning until we have enough context to
figure out what color the piano is.

> and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather
> than le for these?

If you know that the piano is black, why would you say "a piano"
rather than "a black piano"? Perhaps the color is irrelevant, or
obvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a woman", except that
the piano the woman carries happens to be white, so if you had said "a
man carries a black piano", then adding "and so does a woman" wouldn't
work anymore. There are many possible reasons for not saying as much
as you could say in a given context.

> Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense,
> since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence
> contains a context-dependent quantifier.

The Lojban contains information about the number of pianos to the same
extent that it contains information about the color of the piano(s).
In English, it's hard to escape giving some information about the
number. It can be done but the wording ends up being more clumsy than
the most natural expression. In Lojban the one that doesn't involve
the number is the most natural expression.

>> For "loi" there are (at least) two
>> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
>> is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
>> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
>> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
>> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
>> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
>> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
>> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
>> pick the one you like most.
>
> I don't understand the practical difference between the views.

As I said, in practice it doesn't really matter much which view you use.

I prefer (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers
systematic: an outer quantifier always tells you how many out of all
the referents of the sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti
whatsoever. That breaks down for masses if you use view (1).

> When I say lo
> nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together?

Yes.

> If so, what is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu bevri ?

With "loi" it can only be that the men carry it together. With "lo" it
is not said whether they carry it together or whether each carries it,
or whether they carry it in groups of two, or whether one carries it
by himself and the rest carry it together, or ... "lo doesn't tell you
anything about the distribution of men, just as it doesn't say
anything about the color of the piano.

Also, if you say "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno", you can add "gi'e dasni
lo xunre creka". If you use "loi", you would be saying that they wear
a red shirt together, with "lo" each can be wearing his own shirt.

> Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying
> the piano together?

No. All "loi" does in "loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno" is insist that
they do the carrying together.

> If lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno can mean that the men carry the piano(s)
> together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into
> several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and
> doing it individually. Am I wrong?

You are right, in the sense that the sentence would be true in the
situation. It doesn't mean that in the sense that nothing of the sort
is implied by the sentence (just as the color of the piano is not
implied).

> What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they
> carry the piano(s) together?

Outer quantifiers are always distributive. The sentence says that "x
bevri le pipno" is true five times, once each for a different value of
x, where the values of x are taken from the referents of "lo nanmu".

> Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the
> piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?

I guess it could in principle refer to several groups, although there
is no way to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already
used for the number of members of the group, not for the number of
groups.

> If the
> later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back
> to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo .

Yes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a single
individual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanmu"
is legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the
distinction it makes to be relevant.


> Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer
> quantifier simultaneously?

The grammar allows only one outer quantifier per sumti. There are
tricks to get around that though, if you think it would make sense.

> Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction
> quantifiers as well?

The grammar allows them, but who knows what they might mean.

> Also, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri
> le pipno ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the
> men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be
> something else. However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such
> an additional group relationship.

Good point. Fractional quantifiers (which are not true logical
quantifiers) are indeed badly understood. As you say, they would seem
to require the group to be a group for some other reason than because
they are carrying the piano.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.