Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> I was using 'xorlo' as shorthand for 'the bpfk gadri
> proposal'. But it seems that the definition there of {lo} *does*
> interact with masses/groups, because its referents are explicitly
> allowed to be groups.

The referents of "lo" can be anything at all. The referents of "lo
girzu" will be groups. The referents of "lo gerku" could be groups
only if there are groups that are also dogs, which is not a matter to
be decided by "lo". It's part of the semantics of "gerku". Can a group
of things gerku, or can only the members of (certain) groups gerku?
That depends on how "gerku" is defined. In any case, the BPFK
definition of "lo" doesn't mention groups, does it?

> My feeling is that the level-mixing ambiguity which allowing group
> satisfaction of broda in {lo broda} would introduce - {lo besna} could
> have its referents being neurons,

Only if neurons can be a brain. The problem is that in English "to be"
is sometimes used to mean "to constitute". If "lo so'i nirna cu besna"
is true, then I don't see much of a problem in using "lo go'i", i.e.
"lo besna", to refer to the same things that "lo so'i nirna" refers
to.

Whether or not "lo so'i nirna cu besna" can be said to be true is a
matter of the semantics of "besna", not of "lo".

> and generally {lo gunma be lo broda},
> with {gunma} as per your definition below, could have its referents
> brodaing - would be an ambiguity too far.

In my understanding of "gunma", "lo gunma be lo broda cu broda" is not
a tautology, although it is true in many cases. It depends on what
"broda" is.


> And more generally, would you drop CLL's upwards closure axiom for
> "masses", such that you can't have {lo plise} having as referent a group
> whose constituents are an apple and a badger?

("lo plise" has apples as referents, so when speaking carefully I
wouldn't say it has a group as referent.) And of course, I wouldn't
say that "lo plise jo'u lo takside cu plise" is true, and so I
wouldn't use "lo plise" instead of "lo plise jo'u lo takside" to refer
to the apple and the badger.

> However, I don't think that it is so useful to have the 'constituent'
> relation as an ordinary selbri. A magic cmavo might be better.

I think that whether there is a magic cmavo or not, there must
definitely be an "x1 constitute x2" relation as an ordinary selbri.

> Consider : we would always have {ko'a gunma ko'a}, where we interpret
> collectively on both sides.

"gunma" as a symmetric relationship? We already have "du" for that.
And we would still need some other predicate for the cases where we do
need the group to be a new entity. For example, when we want to
quantify over groups.

> Similarly, the referents of {lo selgunma be lo sruri} could be the
> individuals which as groups sruri, but they could also be the sruris
> themselves - depending on whether {lo sruri} is taken to sumti
> distributively or collectively.

There's no way of knowing whether  "lo selgunma be lo sruri" refers to
people or groups of people, since we don't know whether "lo sruri" is
a group of people that surround the building or a group of groups of
people that surround the building. (It has to be a group of something
in order to fill the x2 of "selgunma".) But that's because so many
different things can sruri.

>  And if you want
> arbitrary sumtis to be able to sumti collectively, then getting a good
> theory of collectivity is necessary even to understand {mi}, nevermind
> {loi}.

"mi" is hardly ever plural, so let's use "do", but it's the same deal.
I don't see any special problem with it, it's basically equivalent to
"lo te cusku" (at least as far as collectivity goes). No need to
invoke the "mass" morass for it.

> So allow me to recap how I would like to understand all this:
>
> The data in the interpretation of an ordinary sumti-6 is just a set of
> individuals, its referents. When it sumtis, whether it does so
> distributively or collectively is ambiguous.

Yes, but... "when they sumti", please, not "when it sumtis". It's the
referents, not the set, that do it.

> {lu'a} and {lu'o} can be
> used to disambiguate (forming extraordinary sumti-6).

I pass on that one. As I said, I don't think this is something that
makes sense to mark on the sumti. But according to the lore, in "lu'o
lo broda cu brode", "lu'o" is supposed to say how the brodas brode,
not how they broda.

> Non-fractional
> quantification unambiguously quantifies over the referents.

Yes, but... not everyone agrees on what the referents of "loi broda"
are. Are they brodas, or are they groups of brodas? That's the
neverending discussion, and neither solution is really satisfactory.

> The referents of {lo broda} are such that
> ONE OF (currently unsettled)
> (i) each referent satisfies broda, i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda} is
>    tautologous.
> (ii) the referents either each satisfy broda, or they collectively do,
>    i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda .ija lu'o ri cu broda}

Assuming that "lu'o" means "collectively" and not "lo gunma be". And
also presumably assuming that "collectively" includes such things as
"in pairs" and other distributions, not just "all together". For
example, if I want to say "my coworkers brought their children to work
today", and suppose that some of my coworkers have children together.
How would you do it with "lu'o", keeping in mind that there is no
child that they all brought together?

> This constitutes the definition of {lo broda}, i.e. no further
> information about the referents can be deduced (modulo usual assumptions
> of contextual relevance).

I think (i) is the way to go: "lo broda" = "zo'e noi ke'a broda", and
not "zo'e noi ro ke'a broda".

> A group is a kind of individual, so a possible referent of a sumti-6.

Certainly, for example a referent of "lo girzu".

> A group has as data a set of individuals - its constituents.

OK.

>Things
> "collectively broda" iff the group whose constituents are those things
> brodas.

I'm not sure this will always hold. Do we need it for something?

> (I think John Cowan would want to disagree here, and say in particular
> that the group with only one constituent should not be distinguished
> from that individual. Is that right, John?

(I think you mean John Clifford.)

> But this seems not to fit with your doi xorxes account of loi.)

I don't have one account of "loi", I claim there are (at least) two
accounts, and I favor neither. My preference is for forgetting that
"loi" exists.

> The exact semantics of when a group brodas depends on broda. Perhaps the
> x1 of sruri is upwards closed, but the x1 of plise certainly isn't.

Yes, I agree with that.

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.