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

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

U\I'm not going to worry about {loi} etc. until I am sutre about {lo} and then 
see what is lefyt over that needs dealing with.  {lo cipnrdodo) refers to all 
the dodos there ever were (suppose that is right for this context), all of which 
are thus in the domain of discourse and also in the extension of {cipnrdodo}.  
What problem are you having; I just don't see it?


----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 1:44:49 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 01:44 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:

> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 00:47 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> 
> > * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 19:46 -0700 - John E Clifford 
<kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > > > Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds = maximal
> > > > bunches" idea. Let's see.
> > > > 
> > > > I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense inside the
> > > > description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'a nelci
> > > > lo pavyseljirna} == {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljirna}, which is
> > > > false if there are no unicorns.
> > > 
> > > I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everything else 
>about 
>
> > > descriptions.  The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in general, but 
>may 
>
> > > be obviously wrong in other circumstances.  For example, in generalities, 
>the 
>
> > > tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, future and 
> > > possible.
> > 
> > Right, so I think I do understand you.
> > 
> > Does this work?
> 
> But there's something of a problem: if the plural referent of {lo broda}
> is meant to satisfy broda, what tense can give us e.g. all dodos ever?
> The plural referent of {lo pu cipnrdodo} must satisfy {pu cipnrdodo},
> i.e. must have satisfied {cipnrdodo} at some point in the past. But that
> means we're picking up some dodos all of which existed at the same time.
> 
> So it seems we'd have to have the rule be that {ro lo broda cu broda},
> rather than {lo broda cu broda}, for this to work.

...and then it might make sense to have {loi broda} be the same as {lo},
except that the plural referent is required to broda (rather than the
atoms below it brodaing). So while {lo pu cipnrdodo} could get the bunch
(aka plurality) of all dodos ever, {loi pu cipnrdodo} would have to get
a bunch all of which cipnrdodod at the same past time (which might imply
that they were all alive at the same time, or if dead at least not too
far decomposed...).

So this contains some of the essence of the historical meaning of {loi},
and is usefully distinct from (the understanding under discussion of)
{lo}.

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.