* Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 09:26 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> The fact that something can screw up in English seem poor evidence that the
> "corresponding" thing screws up in Lojban. For instance, in the case that seems
> to be running around, the Only One Professor is, in Lojban certainly (and in
> English rather likely), not a case where quantifiers would be appropriate (or
> only fractional ones).
But there are subkinds of Professor, which xorxes and and do want to
use PA to quantify over.
> So I am uncionvinced.
What are you unconvinced by? That this "screw up" occurs in xorxes and
and's understanding of lojban? Or that their understanding is correct
(whatever that means)?
> As for bunches. My point is just that there are bunches and we can say things
> about them in various modes, e.g., conjunctively, collectively, disjunctively,
> stereotypically, statistically and so one for quitea while, without affecting
> the bunch itself at all.
The problem is then how to tell when which mode is being used.
Martin
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sun, November 6, 2011 9:10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
> variable
>
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 05:16 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Le'see. I think I understand what is going on here. Let me say it out for
> > corrections and then I can get on (though I will comment on this understanding
>
> > now).
>
> Let me summarise from my own (entirely neutral, natch) perspective.
>
> And and xorxes are indeed putting forward their SAE-denying metaphysics.
> I don't think they'd say that lionness cinfos, though. They might say
> that e.g. kinds of lion kinds do.
>
> I was pointing out that one consequence of such a metaphysics is the
> presence of effective ambiguities in quantifier scope, much like those
> in english. They seem to think that this isn't a problem, because they
> are only *effective* ambiguities.
>
> e.g. {su'o ctuca cu tavla ro le tadni}, uttered in a context in which we
> might utter "A professor talked to all the students", can be taken two
> ways. It could be the EA statement that there was a single (mundane)
> professor who talked to all the students. But it could be the EA
> statement that there was a single *kind* of professor who talked to all
> the students. The latter would hold under e.g. the AE assumption that
> each student was talked to by some logic professor.
>
> (just the kind 'Professor' would work in place of the kind
> "logic professors" in principle, but xorxes has some informal rules
> which would block the former in this sentence)
>
> So we end up with something much like the AE vs EA ambiguity of the
> english, but for different reasons.
>
> (maybe... although actually I wonder whether this sort of phenomenon
> couldn't be an explanation for such ambiguities in english?).
>
>
> The jargon is an attempt to find a way for lojban to use kinds while
> avoiding these effective ambiguities. The mechanism was suggested by And
> and taken up (and linked to pre-existing notions) by me. The basic idea
> is simple: it adds a second way to get from usual things to unusual
> things. The first way is to form bunches of things. The second way is to
> perform a baloney-slicing. i.e. we take some (predicate defining some)
> things, e.g. hats (mapku), and we quotient by some equivalence relation,
> i.e. we apply a new notion of equality, i.e. we slice at some angle. We
> then take a bunch of these slices, and say that this can be a referent
> of e.g. {lo mapku}. So e.g. it could be a bunch of styles of hat
> (berets, bowlers and baseball caps, each considered as a single entity),
> or it might be a bunch of colours of hat (red hats and turquoise hats),
> or whatever.
>
> We call the slices imaginaries, but we could also just call them slices.
>
> The default semantics is that bunches are conjunctive and slices are
> disjunctive - i.e. a slice satisfies a unary predicate iff one of the
> mundanes in the slice does, and a bunch of slices satisfies a unary
> predicate iff all the slices in the bunch do.
>
> But just like with bunches and non-distributive predicates, we can
> override this semantics when we want to.
>
> Any deep-seated objections to this?
>
> The basic point is that it's unnatural to use bunches for kinds, because
> bunches are naturally conjunctive while kinds are naturally disjunctive.
>
> Martin
>
>
> > Somebody (the layered responses without summaries makes it difficult to
> > figure out who is advocating what) holds that, in a given conversation,
> >{cinfo}
> >
> > (for example) may mean any of at least: Lion, lions, lion, lion segments
> > (temporally defined), lion kinds, lionness. And which {cinfo} means in that
> > conversation in no way determines what, say, {xanti} (or whatever "elephant" is
> >
> > ) means in that same conversation. Somebody else holds that this makes Lojban
>
> > predicates ambiguous (at least across conversations -- the listed definitions
> > are merely suggestive, not to be taken literally, or, if so, at least
> >liberally)
> >
> > and, further, that it does not work because, in fact, most conversations turn
> > out to involve shifts from one meaning to another, with corresponding changes
> >in
> >
> > the domain, and with disastrous logical consequences (AE implies EA, for
> > example).
> >
> > The first idea seems to rest on 1) a desire to show that Lojban is not SAE
> > metaphysically, but rather can be viewed as of several different types in
> > different contexts and 2) the looseness of English (and presumably Spanish and
>
> > most other familiar languages, possibly excepting Chinese) usage, which does in
> >
> > fact shift among these various meanings unmarked. Unfortunately, goal 1)
> > misses, since all that is shown is how wide the notion of thing is, not that
> >NPs
> >
> > in Lojban refer to other than things. Source 2) is, of course, just
> > irrelevant. The fact that English (etc.) is sloppy does not mean that Lojban
> > is. Lojban has expressions for most of the distinctions here suggested and can
> >
> > easily fill in any gaps (there may be a infinite number of ways to slice the
> > baloney, but at any given point only a finite number have been used, and we can
> >
> > cover that number). Lojban can, of course, be telegraphic, dropping qualifiers
> >
> > that are not needed in context (indeed, Gricean rules require this), but the
> > semantics (and, probably, the pragmatics) are up to handling this and so this
> > need not change the underlying nature of what is going on.
> > As for the other position, I confess that I cannot follow the arguments, which
>
> > seem to me to involve illegitimate (or at least misleading) uses of quantifiers
> >
> > and a lot of technical mumble-jumble that does not obviously serve the point
> > (side one seems to do quite a bit of this, too, and side two may be merely
> > repeating that).
> >
> > In short, this seems to me a tempest in a teacup -- without any real ripples
> > even -- and of no real significance to Lojban.
> > Stepping back to the official topic here for a moment. The notion that {zo'e}
>
> > means "what I have in mind or would have it I thought about it" leads to the
> > paradoxical (but not contradictory) situation: A: xu do klama le zarci. B: na
>
> > go'i . mi klama le zarci. That is, B went to the store, but not from A's
> > intended starting point or not along A's intended path or not using A's
> >intended
> >
> > mode of transportation. But rather using B's intended starting point, path and
> >
> > mode.
> > Taking {zo'e} to be just {da} cleverly disguised avoids this problem but
> >creates
> >
> > others of its own, in terms scope and negation problems (which happen to work
> > out alright here)
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, November 5, 2011 10:31:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
> > variable
> >
> > * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 22:28 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > > * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 18:18 -0300 - Jorge Llambías
> > ><jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> I think I do get it. I just don't think it has anything to do with
> > > >> logical structure.
> > > >
> > > > Well that's a matter of definitions.
> > > >
> > > > But note e.g. that the classic example of scope ambiguity in english,
> > > > "someone loves everyone", can be looked at this way:
> > > >
> > > > A: "Someone loves everyone."
> > > > B: "Oh yeah? Who?
> > > > A: "Their mother."
> > > >
> > > > A: {su'o prenu cu prami ro prenu}
> > > > B: {ma prami ro prenu}
> > > > A: {lo mamta}
> > > >
> > > > (Lojban can't seem to get at the "their" in "their mother", but that's
> > > > not really important)
> > > >
> > > > (and yes, I know by now that you would consider A to be breaking your
> > > > favoured domain conventions by having both mundane people and Mother as
> > > > a person in the same domain; but (a) that's an informal rule, which
> > > > appears to be flexible (you broke it in the xabju example), and (b) it's
> > > > not important to the essence of the example that prenu is being used on
> > > > both sides)
> > >
> > > I still don't think that's a matter of logical structure. It's A
> > > tricking B into one interpretation to get an effect once the "right"
> > > interpretation is presented. That's how many jokes work.
> >
> > Well, I presented it in joke form - which was possibly foolish as
> > I didn't intend to trivialise the issue!
> >
> > Really, I don't see that the situation is significantly better than it
> > is in english.
> >
> > A search for "quantifier scope ambiguity examples" yields various
> > examples of the issue in english, most of which appear to go through
> > directly in kindful lojban.
> >
> > Another clear example:
> > "A professor talked to all the students"
> > {su'o ctuca cu tavla ro le tadni}
> > could mean only that each student was talked to by a professor -
> > formally, just because the kind Professor ctucas; or if we apply your
> > informal rule that quantification indicates that there should be
> > multiple things at the same level involved, then because it could be
> > that they were all talked to by a logic professor.
> >
> > > >> Consider "a beret is a type of hat". I would say "lo ranmapku cu klesi
> > > >> lo mapku".
> > > >
> > > > In reality, I'd just say {ro ranmapku cu mapku}.
> > >
> > > What about "berets and bowler hats are different types of hats"?
> > > "lo ranmapku jo'u lo bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka klesi lo mapku"
> >
> > Again we could avoid kinds, and just say {su'o da ranmapku .o nai
> > bolmapku}. Or we could use properties rather than kinds, and say {lo ka
> > ranmapku na du lo ka bolmapku}, or copy your approach with {lo ka
> > ranmapku ku jo'u lo ka bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka kairni'i lo ka mapku}
> > (where ro da poi selkai ku'o ro de poi selkai zo'u go da de kairni'i gi
> > ro di ckaji da na.a de) (although {go'e fi lo ka ma kau ckaji} might
> > make more sense).
> >
> > > > But if you forced me to use kind terminology, I'd want a second
> > > > predicate for "x1 is a subkind of x2". From the gimste definitions, I'd
> > > > be more likely to use {klesi} for that than "x1 is an instance of x2",
> > > > which is closer to {mupli}. In fact, {mupli} seems to want a property in
> > > > x2, so maybe this could be {klemupli}.
> > >
> > > (I would rather re-define "mupli" into "x1 is an instance of x2", but
> >anyway.)
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > But maybe it's true that kinds are useful enough that the language
> > > > should have special facilities for handling them - e.g. allowing {lo
> > > > mapku} to get a kind. We just need to have ways to disambiguate.
> > >
> > > "klesi" allows us to disambiguate between two levels. Disambiguating
> > > between a potentially infinite number of levels is trickier. As the
> > > old Lojban saying goes: the price of infinite precision is infinite
> > > verbosity
> >
> > Can you give an example where we might want to go up two levels from
> > mundanes (as opposed to their stages or whatever)? I wouldn't be
> > surprised if there were such, and maybe you've given examples before,
> > but none spring to mind (other than artificial examples like "kinds of
> > kinds of garment" - unless you can think of natural cases where we'd
> > want to talk about those).
> >
> > > > The "imaginaries" terminology of the other thread gives one plausible
> > > > approach to this - treating kinds as analogous (and, in a sense, dual)
> > > > to bunches. {su'o} would get neither bunches nor imaginaries, but {lo}
> > > > could get either.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that a system based on this could explain e.g. most if not all
> > > > of the sentences in your alis, while also being sufficiently
> > > > disambiguable to satisfy me.
> > > >
> > > > Would you reject such a solution out of hand?
> > >
> > > I think that covers most needs, but I suspect there are cases when we
> > > may want to quantify over kinds.
> >
> > Hmm. That didn't sound like a rejection!
> >
> > For quantifying over kinds: if the rule is that {lo} gets a bunch of
> > imaginaries which are all imaginaries with respect to the same
> > equivalence relation aka differentiation criterion (i.e., to import one
> > more piece of model theoretic parlance, a bunch of imaginaries from the
> > same "imaginary sort"), I see nothing wrong with using e.g.
> > {ca lo prulamnicte mi citka vo lo cidja poi do nelci}.
> >
> > I would also want it to be possible to specify that we are fa'u are not
> > talking about imaginaries (with respect to a non-trivial equivalence
> > relation, i.e. one coarser than equality), perhaps with {lio} fa'u
> > {loi}.
> >
> > (No that wasn't a typo! The PEG morphology allows {lio} as a cmavo form,
> > right?)
> >
> > I'd also want to be able to specify the equivalence relation in question
> > in the former case, i.e. as per And's (iii) of the other thread. I don't
> > know how to do that... maybe with inner quantifiers?
> > {re lo fi'u vei ni'e ka skari ma kau ve'o mapku cu vi zvati} for
> > "two colours of hat are here", or
> > {so'o lo fi'u vei ni'e ka danlu ma kau ve'o cinfo ba zi morsi} for
> > "several species of lion will soon become extinct"?
> >
> > With {lio broda} being (blissfully) short for {lo fi'u vei ni'e co'e ve'o
> > broda}?
> >
> > And {lo fi'u ro cinfo} being the wholly singularised lion, i.e. Lion
> > (rather than an infinitesimal amount of lion)?
> >
> > 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.
>
Attachment:
pgpAepAVN7MDY.pgp
Description: PGP signature