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

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

Well, I don't insist on modalities, though I think it is an easy way to do 
this.  Alternatively, we can have different kinds of predication or even -- 
though this is less appealing for all the paired predication reasons xorxes 
likes to cite -- different gadri.  Odd to say that no modality is involved when 
there are three modal operators in the bridi, but they are not this kind of 
modality.  It is true that "generally" as a modal does not work well on a 
possible world semantics for modals, so perhaps some other device might be more 
useful (adverbs spring to mind, but I am not sure just how that would work).  
The gadri approach, though hallowed by English usage, seems to me the least 
desirable for a logical language, since it is so far from the facts of the 
matter (though it does work well in Kamp's discourse analysis) -- there is not 
referent for the NP, really.




----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 7:59:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 19:28 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> But that involves different modalities, which may put different constraints on 

> {zo'e} among other things (something on the "kind" end of the range, say).

But for xorxes, no modality is involved (at the first analysis). {lo
rozgu cu ca ca'a bu'u xunre} means "roses are red". The kind 'roses' and
its properties do not vary (much?) with time or possible world.

This statement may then resolve to something like "typical roses are
typically red", involving quantification of instances and worlds, but
that's a second step - which, moreover, xorxes and & might consider
none of lojban's business.

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 6:52:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
> variable
> 
> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 18:41 -0400 - Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 PM, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > > > So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?
> > >
> > > Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
> > > literally:
> > >
> > > {lo rozgu cu xunre}
> > >    == {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}
> > >    == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
> > >    == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
> > >    == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
> > >    == {lo xunre cu rozgu}
> >
> > What's wrong with that?  The rose is a red thing.  The red thing is a rose.
> > I don't see what the problem is
> 
> Those two sentences aren't generally considered equivalent in english.
> 
> Moreover, xorxes would give "roses are red" and "red things are roses"
> as possible translations. Those are even more clearly non-equivalent.
> 
> 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.