Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

The mongrel system now (after a while with xorlo -- as I understand it) just 
looks hopelessly messy.  Like the old Logjam, but with some (largely unrealized) 
attempts to get around the problems (in semantics mainly) that that system 
produced.  In my xorlo, terms and quantifiers all assume plurality, with 
singularity as a limit case.  In addition, predication is normally collective, 
with individual as a limit case. These are just moves in the logic.  Now, when 
we come to the language, we find some special differences.  1) predicates can be 
sorted as to what sort of ivity they use, collective, distributive, or either 
(possibly subdivided by contexts) 2) the assumed ivity can be overridden by a 
descriptor or decriptor-involving expression, either to distributivity or to an 
indefinite position (so far; mayhap a definitive collective will come along. I 
still like 'loi' except for all the "mass" crap it has picked over 55  years or 
so).
The problems with the mongrel system include (but are not limited to) the need 
to interject a move between the term and the referent used to evaluate the 
sentence and the (always admitted as such) ad hoc way of reducing pluralities to 
unities.  It's much easier to make singular quantification out of plural, than 
conversely.  There does remain the problem of indicating whether predication is 
collective or distributive, given that the argument referent is plural and the 
issue cannot be decided by the semantics of the predicate.  But, of course, the 
same problem arises in the mongrel system, where it is unclear whether the set 
or the members of the set have the property in question (we'd have to rewrite a 
lot of semantics to cover the cases, in addition).



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, August 17, 2011 9:03:57 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

* 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

-- 
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.