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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Consider:
>
> A: xu do pu klama su'o friko gugde
> B1: mi pu na klama [zo'e]
> B2: mi pu klama [zo'e]
>
> To get the right readings without an intermediate C, and without using
> kinds, we'd have to interpret the first as being the sum of all African
> countries, and the second as being a particular country which witnesses
> the existential.
>
> With an intermediate C, we can give both {zo'e}s the same
> interpretation.

But then what do you do with:

C: xu do pu klama ro friko gugde
D1: mi na pu klama [zo'e]
D2: mi pu klama [zo'e]

Assuming that we agree D1 should be the negation of C, and D2 its
affirmation, you can't get that with a close scope existential.

I'm happier with "zo'e" being "lo friko gugde" in all these cases.

> Moreover, the Cless interpretation of B1 relied on the distributivity of
> klama's x2. How, without using a C and without using kinds, could we
> handle {lo nanmu na bevri lo ti jubme}, if it's intended to mean that no
> group consisting of men carries the table?

I think (smething like) kinds is the best way to go.

> {zo'e} and {lo} are different, I think, as can be observed by their
> behaviour under negation.

My observation is that "zo'e" and "lo" behave just as "mi" and "ta"
under negation. "lo nanmu na bevri lo vi jubme" is what I would say
when I want to contrast it with "lo nanmu cu bevri lo va sfofa" or
with "lo ninmu cu bevri lo vi jubme", or with "lo nanmu cu renro lo vi
jubme", for example.

> Can I get your opinion on the "Nirvana Conjecture"?
>
> I think that if we ignore anaphora, which could really be horribly
> complicated, we should be in agreement that it should be true. Are we?

> > *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).

I would agree, except I don't make any distinction between the c_'s
and the zo'e_'s, so I just end up with:  "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 elements of the
universe." So your conjecture is true for me too, just a slightly
misleading way of putting it. (Of course in some cases the reduction
might not be actually doable, since it might involve an infinite
number of bridi, say for "ro rarna namcu cu zmadu su'o rarna namcu".)

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.