[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo



It seems that the constantly evolving xorlo (now moving far from 'lo' -- and probably from xorxes as well) has gotten itself into yet another jam, presumably from trying to do too much again.  I suspect that what is needed is to go back to basics and get that clear once more and then move ahead cautiously.  So, the basic 'lo broda' is "the salient node of the upward semilattice of jest on the set assigned to 'broda'" (some set of brodas and broda parts -- whatever that may mean for a particular kind of thing as broda).  'lo', unlike 'loi' says nothing about how the set involved is connected to the predicates involved (collective or distributive).  Variables range over L-sets or are plural, depending on your mathematical theology.  Etc.  do we need to fill in all the details and, if not, which ones?

From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo

la .dan. cu cusku di'e
> Using zo'e directly is obviously fruitless since xorlo seems to
> influence how both zo'e, and how noi work: together they remove our abilities to
> explicitly talk about individuals.

I don't think {noi} changed at all. {zo'e} allows plural reference, but that isn't new either.

> This make me assume that it also affects the
> da-family, so {pa xanto} is also out of the question.

This comes down to whether or not {da} allows for plural variables. Since plural reference is so common in Lojban, it would make sense for {da} to also allow plural variables, but singular variables also have advantages.

Imagine {za'a lo ci xanto cu va cadzu} to set the context. Now, it all depends on on {da}'s plurality what {da va cadzu} can mean. Clearly, we just saw that {lo ci xanto} is a cadzu1, so it should be a possible value for the {da}. The downside to this is that with plural variables, the one X in {pa lo ci xanto} could be all three elephants (although a distributive handling of {me}'s x1 could fix that, or in other words, by saying that {mi'o na me mi'o}), whereas singular variables could only pick out an individual elephant from {lo ci xanto}.

So singular variables are simpler and avoid certain problems, like the {pa xanto} one. On the other hand, it would mean that we can't say {da simxu lo ka prami} for "There are some X who love each other", and we'd have to use more complicated mechanisms for that, like {da poi su'o mei cu simxu lo ka prami} (which isn't *that* bad).

Personally I would be all but opposed to the idea of having plural variables to along with the plural reference while keeping the simplicity of singular quantification, but I probably can't have my cake and eat it, too. I would not want two sets of quantifers, for eaxmple. Another idea would be to have each selbri place decide if it's distributive or not, but I'm not sure I like that very much. So the more practical solution right now seems to be to stick with singular variables, even though it breaks the {simxu} example above and can sometimes be counter-intuitive in a language full of plural reference.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.