* Wednesday, 2011-09-14 at 12:05 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> [1] quantified variables are variables, they do not refer to anything
> but can be replaced under certain condition by referring expression.
> {zo'e} is officially a referring expression, hence not a variable;
> what it refers to is both vague and ambiguous (the obvious thing, it
> is unimportant what). To be sure, at some levels of analysis, it is
> useful to take referring expression as universal scope particular
> quantifiers, but that doesn't operate here. The thing about referring
> expressions is that they pass through quantifiers undisturbed, whereas
> bound variables, eve with tight scope, do not in general.
Yes, but we seem to want the latter. In {ro da klama zo'e}, the intended
referents of {zo'e} will depend on the x1. xorxes would fix this with
kinds/generics; I'd prefer the straightforward solution of making the
zo'e scope within the universal quantifier.
> [...]
> tI am still not clear what C is.
Perhaps it would clarify if I re-express it in a purely singularist way:
I'm suggesting we analyse {zo'e} as introducing, at tightest scope, an
existential quantifier "\exists x \in C", where the C is a contextually
determined set. So e.g.
{zo'e broda ro da} -> \forall y. \exists x\in C_y. broda(x,y)
I confused things slightly by working with a plural semantics.
> [2] Assuming "the sum of all chihuahuas" means a bunch of chihuahuas
> that gets them all in, how does this focus the referent of the
> pronoun to some chihuahuas in a way that just having chihuahuas in
> the domain does not?
Is this now clear? If context indicates that C is the set of all
chihuahuas, the zo'e means "whatever chihuahuas" - which is somewhere in
between "whatever" (C=universe) and "Chichi" (C={Chichi}).
> Sent from my iPad
> [3] What is more natural than having a bunch of things? What seems
> unnatural to ( Nominalist) me is having in addition a generic
> chihuahua (and maybe chihuahua kind besides).
I would prefer to do without them. Xorxes thinks this
impractical/undesirable.
> So, reading between the lines of your description of a kind, brodakind
> is pretty much brodaness, the function from possible wolds to the
> ( set of) brodas in that world (tense and the like merely deal with
> certain regular complexities in the system of worlds). But properties
> don't love people -- or hate them.
Yes. Chierchia (and, basically, Carlson) deal with this by
type-shifting. If you use a kind as an argument in a predicate which
expects mundane individuals, to make the types work out either an
existential or generic-universal quantifier over instances of the kind
is introduced (which depends on the sentence). They use this to explain
bare plurals in english, and corresponding phenomena in other natural
languages.
> {pavyseljirna} btw, vs is not legal medial.
(thanks)
> But talking about unicorns does not mean that unicorn horn have to be
> in the universe of discourse. Using metrology here means breaking up
> bunches of thing in the universe, not breaking up individual things in
> the universe.
I wasn't saying it was true, just an example of a statement we can make
using kinds (or properties).
> We can talk about widespread and rare creatures without tenses, even
> without location tenses.
Without using kinds? How?
> I'm not sure which notation you are using, but I suppose that "cup" is
> the avatar counting function for situations.
Sounds right. I took it from Chierchia - \cup K is the map from
situations to the sum of all instances of the kind K in the situation.
> [4] hideosities from Richard's classes 50 years or so ago but not
> successfully resolved so far as I can tell: tanru, compound predicates
> (without transformations), ditto arguments and argument sequences,
> "modals", UI, {du'u}, and on and on.
Yes... many of these I'd expect to just ignore for now, or implement
hackily and approximately.
> Can I see what you have so far; I haven't mucked in this midden for
> years and it would be interesting to see what progress there has been.
Little if any progress beyond previous attempts, I suspect. But I'll
send you my work-in-progress anyway. (In a separate mail; it isn't
anything like ready for public release)
> [...]
> Bunches operate intensionally like anything else (except, as a bow to
> xorxes, they aren't things). A bunch of broda can be anything from
> a single broda to all the broda ever on all possible worlds (including
> impossible situations). You do have to indicate, somehow, what your
> range is (and thus specify your universe of discourse a bit).
Let me ponder this.
Martin
> On Sep 14, 2011, at 0:13, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Monday, 2011-09-12 at 19:52 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >> [1] The new definition (I don't know how much it differs from the
> >> old) seems defective, since {zo'e} ought not be able to stand for any
> >> variable, not just {no da}. {zo'e} is a referring expression, not
> >> a variable, although what it refers to may be different in each
> >> occurrence (or, more often, non-occurrence).
> >
> > How does that differ from using a tight-scope existential quantifier?
> >
> >> As for [zi'o} radically changing the meaning of a predicate, it does,
> >> but often in the interest of making the meaning of the predication
> >> clearer by removing irrelevant considerations. Note, nothing seems to
> >> say that {zi'o} can't or shouldn't be the reading of a blank.
> >
> > Well, the common understanding seems to be that it can't.
> > (If the common understander is reading and disagrees, please speak)
> >
> > e.g.
> > http://dag.github.com/cll/7/7/
> > is reasonably clear in saying that omitted places should be considered
> > filled with {zo'e}s.
> >
> >> I'm not sure what C is (context?),
> >
> > C is determined by context, hence the choice of letter. It's just
> > some things.
> >
> >> but it is pretty clear that many {zo'e} do not refer to things in
> >> that, since they refer to irrelevancies, by saying they are irrelevant
> >> (I suppose that depends on how you set up your universe, but anything
> >> not mentioned can be dispensed with in almost any way of doing that.)
> >
> > Is this different from existentially quantifying over the universe?
> >
> >> [2] I don't follow this at all. Why need the referent of {zo'e} be in one
> >> pragmatic range or the other depending on the size of the possibilities. The
> >> crucial question seems to be about being grokked from context, which seems
> >> independent of the possible answers. [mi klama] has a nearly infinite number of
> >> fill-ins for x2, yet in the given case is taken to be an "obvious" case. Or is
> >> that what C does, fine down the range?
> >
> > Yes, that was the idea.
> >
> >> And , if so, how would the sum all chihuahuas help do that, since that
> >> seems a rather big range (whatever it is, btw).
> >
> > This would handle the case of context indicating that the {zo'e} should
> > mean "some chihuahuas".
> >
> >> [3] Try mine: {lo broda} refers to a bunch of broda (which bunch is
> >> contextually determined). This bunch is related to a predicate in any
> >> of a variety of ways: collective, conjunctive, disjunctive, some
> >> intermediate forms in which subbunches are related in various
> >> collective ways (the individual cases being the bottom row of this),
> >> and various "statistical" cases (which, admittedly, take more work,
> >> most of which is yet to be done). Your different sorts of
> >> generics/kinds seem to me to be just different ways that a bunch can
> >> satisfy a predicate (the "tendency" sort being of the
> >> not-quite-worked-out sort, the others being of more familiar sorts).
> >
> > Maybe (i.e. depending on what exactly you mean) this can handle kinds,
> > but I don't think it would be very natural.
> >
> > Following Chierchia98 once more, we can consider the kind Broda to be
> > a reification of the map from situations (which for simplicity, ignoring
> > tense issues, we can identify these with possible worlds in Kripke
> > semantics) to the (sum of the) actual brodas in that situation.
> >
> > So we can say things like "unicorns necessitate unicorn horns" and mean
> > that any situation with a unicorn also has a unicorn horn
> > \forall s. ( \cup(Unicorn)(s) != 0 -> \cup(UnicornHorn)(s) != 0 ) .
> >
> > (I know... unicorns again... sorry for lack of imagination)
> >
> > (if we add time and space information to situations, we could also talk
> > about a kind being 'rare' or 'widespread')
> >
> > Does this mean something about {lo pavseljirna} and {lo pavseljirna
> > jirna} where these refer to bunches? If the bunch refered to by {lo
> > pavseljirna} consists of all unicorns in all possible worlds, and comes
> > with the data as to which unicorns are in which possible world, then
> > yes. But that's a rather specific bunch, and a lot of information to be
> > carrying around.
> >
> > In reality, I think I'd prefer to translate the above sense of "unicorns
> > necessitate unicorns horns" into lojban by something like
> > {lo ka pavseljirna cu za'e zatni'i lo ka pavseljirna jirna}.
> >
> >> As for Mr. Broda, he has been around for at least thirty years,
> >> arising from a conflation of Quine and some social anthorpologist
> >> dealing with Trobriand Islanders, and has had more definitions and
> >> explanations that I can count up from memory, but basically it is
> >> something present wherever a broda is present doing whatever the broda
> >> does (i.e., a distributive predication of the bunch).
> >>
> >>
> >> [4] At a certain point, it became clear that all the various chats
> >> about brodas were talking about the same thing, so it seemed to follow
> >> that that should be the simple reference and all the messy details go
> >> elsewhere. Since the details are about how this basic thing, lo
> >> broda, trlated to, the predicate involved, it seem that the place to
> >> put the info is where the two meet up. It is not clear exactly how to
> >> do this, but having a different descriptor for eachcase, when what is
> >> being referred to is always the same, seem bad logical form.
> >>
> >> Have you ever tried to go a Montague grammar for even a small part of
> >> Lojban? The hideosities of some of the complex structures will blow
> >> your mind and you paradigms, although the very basic stuff is pretty
> >> straightforward.
> >
> > Yes, but only the easy bits (those corresponding to FOL) thus far. I got
> > stuck on handling {lo} and {zo'e}...
> >
> > What kind of paradigm-blowing complexities do you have in mind?
> >
> >> (By the way, using {zi'o} for "doesn't matter" blanks makes life a lot
> >> easier).
> >>
> >> [5] WTF is "vague ambiguity"? ambiguity between two vague concepts?
> >> Usually the two words contrast with one another. And how is polysemy
> >> different from ambiguity? (term of art?)
> >
> > I meant "polysemy" to indicate a discrete ambiguity, and "vague
> > ambiguity" a continuous one. I think the first at least might be a term
> > of art (but not my art).
> >
> >> Of course, I take {lo broda} to refer to a bunch of broda, vaguely
> >> specified, perhaps. The connection with the predicate is then
> >> ambiguous (as matters now stand), since there are half-a-dozen
> >> possibilities at least, and several of them may be plausible in
> >> a given situation.
> >
> > So I think the main thing I don't understand about your understanding of
> > {lo} is how these bunches work wrt intension, i.e. how they interact
> > with possible worlds and tense.
> >
> >> [6] It seems the discussion arises from trying to get from {lo tciauau
> >> cu prami lo prenu} to something that will end up allowing an AE claim
> >> to be converted, salve vertitatem, into an EA claim. Most of the
> >> steps suggested seem implausible at best and none of them seem to take
> >> account of the real features being employed, beyond the quantifiers,
> >> variously understood (no consideration for the type of connection to
> >> the predicates, for a main example). The moves to save parts of this
> >> seem just desperate.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> >> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> >> Sent: Mon, September 12, 2011 5:52:55 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
> >> variable
> >>
> >> * Sunday, 2011-09-11 at 13:50 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >>
> >>> {zo'e} is a strange word. It is more often understood than used and,
> >>> when used,
> >>>
> >>> has primarily a pragmatic function more than a semantic one. It is
> >>> one of the stock expansions of the space left by a missing argument in
> >>> a bridi, along with pronouns (anaphoric or deictic), regular noun
> >>> phrases (to the same purposes as pronouns), {da} etc., and {zi'o}.
> >>
> >> [1]I thought the modern convention was that {zi'o} isn't allowed (see
> >> www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Grammatical+Pro-sumti
> >> ). Certainly it makes things more complicated if it is!
> >>
> >> If we don't allow {zi'o}, it seems that "somethings among C", where
> >> C is glorked from context, deals with all the expansions you mention.
> >> i.e. {broda zo'e} -> EX X among C. broda(X)
> >>
> >> (well... technically this doesn't handle {da}, if we consider that to be
> >> a singular variable, but it's close to doing so)
> >>
> >>> Its pragmatic function flows from the laws of quantity; it means "I
> >>> don't need to tell you what", either because you already know from
> >>> context or because it plays no role in the story being told. Each
> >>> occurrence of it is a constant, but separate occurrences are
> >>> independent (L3).
> >>> In its "plays no role" role, ir does not imply that speaker knows what its
> >>> reference is, though its context-sensitive role does.
> >>
> >> [2]I'd want to say that this difference is got at by the choice of C. If
> >> C is something like the sum of all people, we effectively have the
> >> "plays no role" idea. If C is small, like {la .alis. joi la bob.} or the
> >> sum of all chihuahuas, we have the "you-know-what" interpretation.
> >>
> >>> On the whole, it is an
> >>> odd thing to have in a logical language: if something plays no role, then
> >>> eliminate the temptation to refer to it with {zi'o}. If it is obvious
> >>> from the context, then put it in in a minimal way. There ought not be
> >>> two (let alone half-a-dozen) elision transformations with such varied
> >>> meanings, without clear clues to choose among them.
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >>
> >>> In any case, it seems a weak base to build an explanation of {lo} on.
> >>> To do this latest. it has to mean (as it does not obviously in the
> >>> original situation) "what I have in mind" -- something I may at
> >>> some point indeed have to tell you. In addition, MB, at least,
> >>> seems to thing it should also mean some specified kind/generic: {lo
> >>> broda} refers to brodakind, the generic broda or (as we used to say)
> >>> Mr. Broda.
> >>
> >> [3]MB doesn't really think that any more. MB is (belatedly) largely
> >> despairing of getting a neat and politically acceptable theory of {lo}.
> >>
> >> He also thinks we should be careful to separate generic brodas, which
> >> satisfy a predicate iff brodas tend to satisfy it, from kinds which can
> >> have entirely different properties (like being widespread).
> >>
> >> He never understood who Mr. Broda was meant to be.
> >>
> >>> xorxes agrees that this is a possible reading of {lo broda} --
> >>> without, that I can see, driving this back onto {zo'e}. All of this,
> >>> needless to say, takes place a long way from the realm of gaps in
> >>> a predicate place structure, and so it is hard to get a grasp on the
> >>> arguments. Starting from the original meaning, we get the
> >>> following
> >>> 1E* Everybody is loved by some chihuahua (this seems to me, on the
> >>> basis of my experiences with chihuahuas, to be absurd, but anyhow)
> >>> 2E* Everybody is loved by the thing, which is a chihuahua.
> >>> 3E* The thing, which is a chihuahua, loves everybody
> >>> 4E* Some chihuahua loves everybody.
> >>> 4>1, 1/4, 2=3, 2>1, 3>4, so 3>1, 2>4 and 1/2. 1/3, 4/2,3
> >>> These remarks are essentially domain independent (ignoring domains
> >>> with only one chihuahua) and I don't see any reason why one domain
> >>> rather than another is to be chosen, unless it is to make an inference
> >>> from 1 to 2 or 4 to 3 go through.
> >>> But domains with only one chihuahua (assuming it has any at all) are highly
> >>> implausible. So, I don't get what is going on here (or, rather, I do, but am
> >>> damned if I will give it the satisfaction of actually saying it so far).
> >>
> >>> So, to go back to basics, {lo broda} refers to a bunch of broda (no
> >>> metaphysical commitments here, just a fac,on de parler that is easier
> >>> to work with in some fine cases) and iis neutral with respect to how
> >>> its referent is related to various predicates (including {broda}, in
> >>> fact). Lojban lacks the means to say explicitly what that relation is
> >>> in most cases, but, in any case, saying what that relation is is not
> >>> a matter to be taken up by a gadri, but at the sumti-selbri interface,
> >>> if at all.
> >>
> >> [4] I'm not sure what you mean by all that.
> >>
> >> But my starting point here is that the sumti-selbri interface should be
> >> simple - corresponding to elements and relations in a Kripke model (or
> >> some more baroque structure along the same lines), as in Montague-style
> >> formal semantics.
> >>
> >> Are you saying that you think this simply inappropriate for lojban?
> >>
> >>> And, it needs to be noted, the choices are not limited to
> >>> (conjunctive) distribution and collection, but include at least
> >>> disjunctive distribution
> >>
> >> Why would you want to include that?
> >>
> >>> and various statistical and quasi-statistical
> >>> modes. There does not appear to be any reason to think that [lo
> >>> broda] is ambiguous rather than vague (just what all did I have in
> >>> mind)
> >>
> >> [5]I think that if we allow {lo broda} to be the Kind broda, this would be
> >> polysemy rather than just vague ambiguity.
> >>
> >> But it sounds like you don't want to?
> >>
> >>> or that the arguments above, with {lo broda} in place of {zo'e
> >>> noi broda} would go through unmodified (in a sensible way, rather than
> >>> dragging in an odd domain).
> >>
> >> [6]I'm not sure what you mean here.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> >>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> >>> Sent: Sun, September 11, 2011 12:46:56 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
> >>> variable
> >>>
> >>> [notational note: I looked again at some of the formal semantics
> >>> literature, and it seems that 'kind' is preferred to 'generic' for the
> >>> abstract individuals like 'chihuahuas' we've been talking about - which
> >>> I think corresponds to what are called 'kinds' in e.g. Chierchia
> >>> "References to Kinds across Languages" 1998; 'generic' seems to be
> >>> reserved for the {lo'e} idea of "typical individuals". I use 'kind'
> >>> below.]
> >>>
> >>> * Saturday, 2011-09-10 at 15:04 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >>>>> * Saturday, 2011-09-10 at 10:43 -0300 - Jorge Llambías
> >>>> <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1L: ro prenu cu se prami su'o tciuaua
> >>>>>> 1E: Everyone is loved by some chihuahua.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2L: ro prenu cu se prami zo'e noi tciuaua
> >>>>>> 2E: Everyone is loved by chihuauas.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3L: zo'e noi tciuaua cu prami ro prenu
> >>>>>> 3E: Chihuahuas love everyone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4L: su'o tciuaua cu prami ro prenu
> >>>>>> 4E: Some chihuahua loves everyone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We also have two domains of discourse:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> D1 = {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., lo
> >>>>>> tciuaua ku xi pa, lo tciuaua ku xi re, ...}
> >>>>>> = {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahua_1, chihuahua_2,
> >> ...}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> D2 = {lo prenu ku xi pa, lo prenu ku xi re, lo prenu ku xi ci, .., lo
> >>>> tciuaua}
> >>>>>> = {person_1, person_2, person_3, ...., chihuahuas}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> D1 and D2 are not the same domain. Sentences 1 and 4 "put us" in
> >>>>>> domain D1, while sentences 2 and 3 "put us" is domain D2. By that I
> >>>>>> mean that those are the natural domains in which to interpret those
> >>>>>> sentences without any more context. Do we agree so far?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not entirely. I think 1E-4E could just as well be interpreted in the
> >>>>> union D12 of D1 and D2 - because a sentence involving "some chihuahua"
> >>>>> can't have the generic "chihuahuas" as an witness, and although
> >>>>> (as in Carlson) a predication involving "chihuahuas" is ambiguous
> >>>>> between being about the generic and about its
> >>>>> manifestations/stages/whatever, that doesn't mean the domain of
> >>>>> discourse has to be different for different interpretations.
> >>>>
> >>>> The English situation is additionally complicated by the
> >>>> singular/plural morphology. You say that "some chihuahua" can't have
> >>>> chihuahuas as a witness, even when chihuahuas are in the domain of
> >>>> discourse. But why is that? Is it because only chihuahuas can be a
> >>>> witness, and chihuahuas are not chihuahuas? That can't be the reason
> >>>> because chihuahuas are indeed chihuahuas. I think it has to do with
> >>>> something like the witness has to satisfy "...is a chihuahua", and not
> >>>> just "...are chihuahuas". So those two are different predicates in
> >>>> English, at least when the domain of discourse is D12. In Lojban we
> >>>> have to make do with "tciuaua" for both.
> >>>
> >>> The situation in English is rather strange. The singular does indeed
> >>> seem to refer specifically to individuals. Meanwhile the plural is
> >>> ambiguous between pluralities of individuals and pluralities of
> >>> strict subkinds - "some chihuahuas" can't be witnessed by the kind
> >>> 'chihuahuas', but it *can* be witnessed by 'black chihuahuas' or 'dead
> >>> chihuahuas'.
> >>>
> >>> So it seems English does differentiate between kinds and mundanes,
> >>> but it confuses the two in plurals.
> >>>
> >>> This does seem to really be a binary ambiguity, though. I've tested
> >>> a few native english speakers on the phrase "some dogs love everyone;
> >>> indeed, chihuahuas do", and they report understanding the intention, but
> >>> experiencing some surprise on reaching the second clause and having to
> >>> re-evaluate the first clause to refer to kinds rather than individuals.
> >>>
> >>> Further evidence for its binary nature:
> >>> *"many dogs love everyone; indeed Barney does, chihuahuas do..."
> >>> is, I think, semantically anomalous.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see why we should import this ambiguity to lojban. Even apart
> >>> from all the problems it causes which it doesn't cause in english ('I
> >>> hate dogs' doesn't imply 'I hate one or more dogs', even when
> >>> interpreted in the same domain of discourse), I would think it
> >>> unlojbanic to have a binary ambiguity - especially one which can't be
> >>> straightforwardly and clearly disambiguated.
> >>>
> >>>>> You seem to be saying that D12 is an intrinsically unnatural domain for
> >>>>> lojban. That seems to be a difference from english.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm saying a domain like D12 needs extra work. For example, instead of
> >>>> a single predicate "tciuaua" we need two predicates, to go with the
> >>>> English "... is a chihuahua" and "... are chihuahuas", which we would
> >>>> have to use instead of the plain "tciuaua" to properly restrict the
> >>>> quantifier.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think something like this might be the solution. We allow domains
> >>> like D12 as a matter of course, and have a new predicate corresponding
> >>> to the kind sense of "... are chihuahuas" - i.e. meaning "is
> >>> a (non-strict) subkind of the kind 'chihuahuas'". It and {tciuaua} should be
> >>> mutually exclusive.
> >>>
> >>> If we have a way of getting explicitly at the kind 'tciuauas', we can
> >>> then use {klesi} to get at subkinds.
> >>>
> >>> So we need something corresponding to Chierchia's down operator. This
> >>> shouldn't be {lo'e}, because that's about genericity. I'm wondering
> >>> whether it could indeed be {lo} - using Chierchia's type-shifting (which
> >>> is similar to Carlson's quantification over stages) to get back to
> >>> existential quantification over instances. The crucial change from what
> >>> you've been suggesting would be that although {lo broda cu broda} would
> >>> hold, and {lo broda} would be referring to an individual in our
> >>> universe, it would *not* follow that this individual satisfies the x1 of
> >>> {broda} in the usual sense - rather, {lo broda cu broda} would transform
> >>> by type-shifting to {su'o da poi [instance-of] lo broda cu broda} (where
> >>> {me} might or might not work for [instance-of]).
> >>>
> >>> I'll read some more of Chierchia and see if I can come up with
> >>> a proposal along these lines which would satisfy us both (and hopefully
> >>> everyone else).
> >>>
> >>>>> (In fact, I *would* like to claim that 1L logically implies 2L, because
> >>>>> I would still like to analyse {zo'e} (but not {lo}) as in the subject
> >>>>> line of this thread. But that's beside the point.)
> >>>>
> >>>> So you would like to claim
> >>>>
> >>>> D1 |= 1L
> >>>> implies D1 |= 2L
> >>>>
> >>>> and that D1 is a natural/preferred domain for 1L.
> >>>>
> >>>> If that's how you want to analyse "zo'e", you still have to account
> >>>> for the "obvious" as opposed to the "irrelevant" sense of "zo'e". As
> >>>> in:
> >>>>
> >>>> - xu do djica lo nu klama lo zarci
> >>>> - u'u mi na kakne lo nu klama .i ei mi klama lo drata
> >>>> "Do you want to come to the market?"
> >>>> "Sorry, I can't go. I have to go somewhere else."
> >>>>
> >>>> That should not come out as "I can't go anywhere."
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Yes, it isn't a simple existential quantifier. But how about just
> >>> having the domain of the existential quantification be contextually
> >>> determined - i.e. the quantifier is "for some xs such that context
> >>> suggests I would likely be talking about xs here". The domain
> >>> 'everything' would always be plausible; other domains like {the market
> >>> we just mentioned} or 'all markets' would be plausible in certain
> >>> contexts.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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.
> >>
>
> --
> 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.
>
Attachment:
pgpsSu1bogQc_.pgp
Description: PGP signature