[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Now I am mor con used than before. Why is there only one bunch off people living in glass houses and why must they all exist at one time / in one world, and why can't they? I am unclear what restrictions you are placing on worlds an domains. I am also unclear as to what you think the logical form of "People who live in glass houses should install proper insulation" is.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 19, 2011, at 22:41, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 19:11 -0700 - 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?
>
> Hmm. So you'd want every dodo which ever lived to now cipnrdodo - even
> if it doesn't zasti, nevermind jmive?
>
> That might work for some cases, but what if we want to say "people in
> glass houses should install proper insulation"? Even if the people in
> question (who mostly don't zasti in this possible world, nevermind now)
> were to ca ca'a prenu, they surely couldn't ca ca'a nenri su'o blaci
> zdani; nor is there any other world in which they all do.
>
> So the bunch of them doesn't satisfy {prenu gi'e nenri su'o blaci
> zdani} - since there's only one bunch, we would need that the bunch
> satisfies this in some given world. It doesn't.
>
> But each atom (person, in this case) in the bunch does satisfy {prenu
> gi'e nenri su'o blaci zdani}. So for {lo prenu poi nenri su'o blaci
> zdani} to get the bunch, we'd need the quantifier over worlds to go
> inside a quantifier over the bunch. The gadri seems the right place
> to specify this.
>
> Martin
>
>> ----- 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.
--
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.