Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Friday, 2011-08-26 at 19:15 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > But wouldn't you agree that the domain of discourse should be mostly
>> > static?
>> I think it needs to be mostly dynamic. (Don't ask me for a full theory
>> of dynamic how, but I think the static assumption only works for
>> interpreting small chunks of language at a time.)
>
> Oh. But then is a model-theoretic formal semantics of any use at all?

I'm not sure about it being of use, but it would certainly be nice to
have a complete formal semantics for Lojban. Obviously we are nowhere
near that.

>> >> >> and "poets write some poems, but most poems are written by non-poets"?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think 'poets' is a generic there, any more than 'non-poets' is.
>> >>
>> >> Carlson would disagree. (Or rather,I think he would say that bare
>> >> plurals are always the same thing, I'm not sure he would call it a
>> >> generic.)
>> >
>> > Hmm. I think he would call 'poets' and 'non-poets' indefinite plurals,
>> > and analyse them as existentially quantified
>> > instances/realisations/stages of the corresponding Kinds (as in section
>> > 4.2 of the paper you reffed).
>>
>> Read again the paragraph beginning "But here I seem to be arguing the
>> contrary of what I have argued for at length a bit earlier [...] the
>> remainder of this work is devoted to the resolution of this
>> contradictory state of affairs." The resolution is that the
>> existential quantifier ends up being buried within the predicate, not
>> in the bare plural term. The predicate "... writes some poems" becomes
>> something like "/xEy[R(x,y)&writes-some-poems(y)", while "poets"
>> translates as "/PP(p)".
>>
>> And this works because, as Carlson points out, bare plurals are never
>> actually ambiguous as to what reading they should be given. The
>> predicate normally selects for which reading is the one called for,
>> and when it doesn't it's because the predicate itself is ambiguous, as
>> can be shown with the same predicate acting on non-bare plural
>> arguments.
>
> Yes, but you don't want this to translate directly to Lojban, do you?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "this" here.

My Lojban translation for "poets write some poems, but most poems are
written by non-poets" might be something like: "lo pemfi'i cu finti
su'o pemci .i ku'i so'e pemci cu se finti lo na'e pemfi'i"

> E.g. 'poets' couldn't be {lo'e pemfinti} in the above, could it?

I can't say much about "lo'e" because I don't know what it means. If
it has anything to do with typicalness, as the gloss suggests, then
no, I don't think it would work there. If it only indicates that the
sumti must be given a generic referent, similar to Carlson's analysis
of the bare plural, I see no problem.

> Or if you don't believe in {lo'e}, make the question: could {lo gerku cu
> cmalu gi'e xagji} be translated as "dogs are small and some dogs are
> hungry"?

I don't think so, where would the "some" have come from? It would have
to be one of the options in: "(The) dog(s) is/are/(was/were/...) small
and hungry".

I would go with "the dogs are small and hungry" without any context.
It would be interesting to figure out why "dogs are small and hungry"
is so hoplessly bad. Maybe because "hungry" is a stage property and
"small" is not (at least not in the same scale of stages).

>> >> but for "lo broda lo brodi cu
>> >> brodu", just the same as for any other "ko'a ko'e broda". I just don't
>> >> think that "lo broda" fixes by itself any level of abstraction.
>> >
>> > So you think we should just consider it as another part of the ineffable
>> > and irreducible semantics of brodu?
>>
>> It doesn't have to be ineffable and irreducible, but yes, I think it
>> makes more sense to shift the focus of the analysis there.
>
> If it isn't irreducible, could you indicate at all how you'd do that
> analysis?

I suspect that the aspect (implicit or explicit) on the predicate
would play a crucial role. Also the type of property, if it's a
property that applies to its argument as a whole or only through a
temporal stage, and things like that. The latter would be part of the
lexical entry for that predicate. This is similar to the way that the
meaning of a predicate will determine whether a distributive or
collective reading on its argument will be more likely. Sorry I can't
give a full blown theory.

>> I would say: "lo remna cu se tuple re da".
>
> You... would? Even though you'd have it being equivalent to
> {re da zo'u lo remna cu tuple da}? What are the two solutions for {da}?

The right leg and the left one. (Or right legs and left legs) At this
level of abstraction, where "lo remna" has a single (generic)
referent, there are two referents for human legs.

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.