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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 11:33 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>>  In particular, I don't find it
>> reasonable to interpret an out of the blue quantification as
>> quantification over a singleton domain.
...
> Do you mean that, since you prefer not to have kinds and their instances
> in the same domain, you would have the second domain not containing any
> of the brodes from the first domain, leaving you with only one brode?

Yes, quantification over a domain with mixed levels of individuation
is even more bizarre than quantification over a singleton domain.

> Assuming so: firstly, we could just as well have used {pa} rather than
> {su'o};

"pa" still calls for a non-singleton domain, as does "no" and every
other quantifier. (By "calls for" I don't mean "logically
necessitates, I mean "reasonably requires".)

>secondly, the second domain could have multiple brodes too
> - e.g. lots of different kinds of beret, even if it has no "mundane"
> berets.

Yes, that would be fine. But it does not make the AE equivalent to the EA.

>> > How about in a situation where the EA claim is more plausible - e.g.
>> > when talking about the residents of some fictional country:
>> >    {ro xabju cu se turni lo xabju} ;
>> > would "some resident(s) govern all residents" not be a plausible
>> > reading?
>>
>> My reading is that every resident is governed by residents (as opposed
>> to being governed by non-residents, say). I don't see any "E" in that
>> claim. It says nothing about how many residents do any governing.
>
> This is a side-issue on the meaning of {lo}, but an interesting one.
> So to clarify, let me ask: if it were the case that there was e.g.
> a single monarchial resident who ruled all residents, could {lo xabju}
> in {ro xabju cu se turni lo xabju} have that monarch as its referent? If
> so, would this be the most likely interpretation?

If I knew nothing about the place, and all you told me was "ro xabju
cu se turni lo xabju", would I conclude that it was a monarchy? No. If
I already knew that it was a monarchy, would I accept "ro xabju cu se
turni lo xabju"? Yes.

> ta'o nai, what about
> {pa xabju cu turni ro xabju}?

That would tell me it was a monarchy.

> Based on the berets example, it seems you would want to interpret this
> as "residents govern all residents", i.e. the same as for {ro xabju cu
> se turni lo xabju} above?

No, sorry, I don't follow.

> Or perhaps you wouldn't, but only because we have {xabju} on both the
> left and the right, blocking a domain with only one xabju? If so, how
> about {pa na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju}?

That would still suggest a monarchy, or at least a government by a
single non-resident entity: in a domain with probably more than one
non-residents, one and only one governs all residents. "pa na'e xabju
cu turni ro xabju" is equivalent to "da'a pa na'e xabju cu turni me'i
xabju", "all but one non-residents govern fewer than all residents".

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.