Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Let me expand on that slightly. To reiterate and amend, I'm suggesting
> that we understand {zo'e} as follows:
> * All omitted numbered places are filled with {zo'e}
> * By a "zo'e expression" I mean an instance of {zo'e} along with any
>    attached relative clauses, e.g. {zo'e noi broda}.
> * Let us assume the Nirvana Conjecture:
>    When interpreting lojban, other rules reduce to the problem of
>    determining the truth value in a given possible world of a bridi
>    whose sumti are all either elements of the universe or are {zo'e}
>    expressions (or are anaphora to the latter, but let's ignore that).
>    So reordering, we have selbri(c_1,...,c_n,zo'e_1,...,zo'e_m).
> * Interpret this as
>    \exists (x_1,...,x_m) \in C. (selbri(c_1,...,c_n,x_1,...,x_m))
> * C here is a glorked subset of the mth cartesian power of the universe;
>    it depends on the current context, in particular on any quantified
>    variables the current formula is in the scope of.
> * Importantly, C is required to be such that any (x_1,...,x_m)\in
>    C satisfy all relative clauses in the zo'e expressions.
> * Note that {noi} and {poi} have the same effect for existential
>    quantifiers, so {zo'e noi} is the same as {zo'e poi}.
> * Handling plurals: take our universe to contain pluralities as well as
>    atoms, as discussed elsewhere and as presented nicely in
>    Chierchia98 section 2.1.
> * Handling kinds: also handled, if handled we want them to be, just by
>    having them in our universe, as in beloved Chierchia98.

I'm not sure I see the point of having zo'e be a quantification over
the members of C, instead of a direct reference to those very same
members. What do you gain with the intermediate set C? Would you also
want to say that "ta" is a close-scope quantification over a set T
whose members are glorked from context in much the same way as we
glork the referents of "ta" in an explanation that doesn't involve
quantification?

As to the equivalence of noi and poi:

A: xu do nelci ta
B1: mi nelci zo'e poi zunle
B2: mi nelci zo'e noi zunle

Assuming B1 and B2 mean the same, then "zo'e" could have different
referents in each answer (or your C could have different members). In
B1, "zo'e" would have the same referents as "ta", (or C would have the
referents of "ta" as its members) and "poi" will select from those the
ones on the left. In B2, the referents of "zo'e" would have to be
already restricted to those on the left presumably by the context, so
that all of its referents end up satisfying "zunle". I find B1 more
natural, and I would say B2 is appropriate only if "ta" already
pointed to only things on the left.

> But sadly this doesn't seem to handle e.g.
> {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja}, which should be something like
> Gen (w, n:nicte_w, cin:cinfo_w) ( cabna_w(n) ->
>    \exists cid:cidja_w(cid, cin). kalte_w(cin, cid) )
>
> "For generic (contextually relevant) worlds, nights and lions, with the
> world cotemporaneous with the night, the lion hunts for something which
> is food to it."
>
> I don't see how any of the current understandings of {lo} could get that
> existential scoped within that generic...
>
> doi xorxes, if you're still listening: how do you get the right meaning
> there?

I have a domain of discourse with three (relevant) members: {Nights,
Lions, Food}, and a simple three argument predicate: "at x1, x2 hunts
for x3". The order in which the three constant arguments are presented
is irrelevant (as long as they are properly tagged). All further
explanations in terms of particular instances of Nights, Lions or Food
are beyond this level of abstraction. In this sentence, all we are
told is the answers to "when do lions hunt for food?", "who hunts for
food at night?", "what do lions hunt for at night?", "what do lions do
to food at night?". We are not told anything about particular nights,
particular lions, or particular instances of food.

(That's assuming all "ca" does is create a new predicate with an
additional argument, which is the usual Lojban explanation of tags.
This can in fact be expanded a bit more: ca ko'a ko'e broda ko'i ->
ko'a se cabna lo nu ko'e broda ko'i, but I don't think this affects
the present issue, in the expansion we are just showing how to create
a three-place predicate out of the two two-place predicates.)

> [Chierchia98]: Chierchia, "Reference to kinds across languages", 1998, Natural
>    Language Semantics Volume 6 Number 4... of which a preprint was
>    easily available the other day, but seems to have now been taken
>    down, which really isn't funny. I'll mail you and any lojbanist who
>    asks a copy of the preprint.

I'd like one please. I seem to recall reading it some years ago, but I
can only find it behind paywalls now.

ki'e 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.