* Tuesday, 2011-08-16 at 20:22 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Or do you want to say that it *doesn't* follow that those neurons
> > collectively {besna}, because the semantics of besna are such that only
> > individual brains satisfy {besna}? And generally that plural predication
> > is reserved for a few special predicates like {sruri}? That might make
> > the ambiguities more manageable.
>
> Yes, that's what I think. Some predicates require collective
> predication, some require distributive predication, and some are happy
> with both. That's part of the meaning of each predicate. It may be
> more a matter of having an affinity for a certain type of predication
> rather than an absolute requirement. Perhaps in some context it may
> make sense to say that some neurons are a brain.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > But what are the referents of {lo besna}? Brains, or neurons?
>
> The referent of "lo besna" is always brains, and in addition, whenever
> neurons are brains, brains are neurons, so in that case, the referents
> of "lo besna" are also neurons.
>
> > If you
> > leave it ambiguous, won't this cause confusion? e.g. how would you
> > translate "these brains are conscious" without being misunderstood as
> > claiming that each of their constituent neurons are?
>
> This particular example doesn't seem like it would ever cause
> confusion, but in general I suppose you would have to go with
> something like "ti noi ro ke'a besna cu sanji" if you need that kind
> of precision. The only way to make sure your predicate appplies
> distributively is through a quantifier.
OK. Given the clarifications above to the effect that plural predication
should be limited and fairly rare, I think I can see this working - and
generally the ambiguity in allowing collective satisfaction in {lo
broda} being acceptable.
> > So how do you see collective predication and groups-as-individuals
> > interacting?
>
> I would say predicate-logic-Lojban (whenever quantifiers get involved)
> has a preference for groups-as-individuals, while ordinary
> conversation Lojban has a preference for collective predication.
> Lojban is weird because it doesn't have plural quantifiers, which are
> really needed for logically handling collective predication, and it
> doesn't have singular variables, other than "da", "de", "di". So it's
> a strange mix.
Yes.
But if we accept the rule discussed below that if G is the group whose
set of constituents is equal to set of referents of {ko'a} then the
individual G satisfies broda iff {ko'a broda} holds, and accept that
such groups are individuals in our universe, then singular
quantification would effectively include plural quantification...
If for some ko'a it holds that {ko'a sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, then
{da sruri le dinju gi'e krixa} would hold, and things like {ro da poi
casnu cu tavla} would make sense.
Whether it's actually a good idea to allow such things, I'm not so sure.
> >> > 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.
> >
> > If you agree that this is all the data in a group, then {girzu} is
> > maybe not a good word to use... how about {zilgri}, defined to kill the
> > x2 and x4 places of {girzu}?
>
> Why not "gunma"?
The difference could be only that zilgri takes a set in x2 rather than
a plural.
> I didn't mean to say "lo girzu" is the most general kind of group,
> just an example of an individual that also happens to be a group. I
> could have used "lo bende", or "lo lanzu". I think "lo gunma" should
> be the most general case.
>
> >> >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?
> >
> > Elegance?
>
> OK, I can't think of any serious objection.
Similarly - although as noted above, admitting such groups does have
some serious consequences.
> Even things like "lo ci prenu cu pa mei" can be read collectively (as
> in "lo ci prenu cu pa mei lo bende").
What are you getting at here, sorry?
Martin
Attachment:
pgphnJ69G2zVI.pgp
Description: PGP signature