From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Sep 18 08:05:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 18 Sep 2002 15:05:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 93981 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 15:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Sep 2002 15:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 15:05:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17rgPn-0000nA-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:55 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rgP8-0000mm-00; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:14 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rgP5-0000md-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:06:11 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8IFAWwD008098 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8IFAWUs008097 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:10:32 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Message-ID: <20020918151032.GA7613@allusion.net> References: <19d.8e35557.2ab9e5d9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19d.8e35557.2ab9e5d9@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1296 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:21:13AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/18/2002 8:44:35 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@fre= e.fr=20 > writes: [...] > > la xorxes cusku di'e> > > > To me {da zo'u broda tu'a da} makes > > > a different klaim than {broda tu'a da}, where the quantification > > > of {da} is within the {tu'a} abstraction. I don't know how > > > you can defend the {tu'a} expressions for intensional contexts > > > if you don't think so. > >=20 > > I am lost here: I thought the grammar said clearly that in > > {da zo'u broda tu'a da} the {da zo'u} could be freely omitted > > with no change in semantic, and so I don't see how > > {broda tu'a da} could claim a different thing, intensional contexts > > or not. Or maybe I fail to read an other discussion where you > > agree on redefining this grammar point in intensional contexts. > > Could you give an example with true selbris where the two have > > to be different? >=20 > The grammar clearly says a number of things that are not so in at least s= ome=20 > cases (the most famous is that {a broda b} =3D (b se broda a} , which doe= s not=20 > hold when a and b are bound in place with different quantifiers: {ro da p= rami=20 > de}, "Everybody loves somebody" is not the same as {de se prami ro da} "T= here=20 > is at least one persom whom everybody loves").=20=20 [ note to lionel: the default quantifier on da/de/di is su'o, which is where the ambiguity comes from: ] This doesn't support that a broda b !=3D b se broda a in the general case. This merely shows that there is a different most-likely interpretation of the quantification of the da/de/di variables based on their order. Either of those two sentences *could* be interpreted as the other, but le gerku cu batci mi is precisely the same as mi se batci le gerku; both in possible meanings and in the most-likely interpretation. Furthermore, though the word order leads to different likely interpretation it doesn't change the possible meanings. ro da prami de Can mean "Everyone loves >=3Done other (the same) person" just as much as i= t can mean "Everyone loves someone (else)". Your mearly cheating with su'o to try to claim the grammar doesn't fully explain this. The non-ambiguous ways to make the two claims are: ro da poi prenu cu prami lo drata be vo'a Everyone loves someone other than themselves. (in practice the be vo'a would likely be elided and inferred through a zo'e). ro da poi prenu cu prami le su'o prenu Everyone loves the one-or-more persons. These two claims *are* the exact same if you flip the terms. (Except the former requires changing the vo'a to a vo'e). > As for the quantifier bit, the grammar of intensional contexts has not be= en=20 > redefined, mainly because CLL does so little about defining it. So we sa= y=20 > "clarified" instead of "changed." In any case, we would not want to go f= rom=20 > {mi nitcu tu'a lo dinko} "I need a nail" (and any old one will do) to {da= poi=20 > dinko zo'u mi nitcu da} "There is one particular nail I need" (or "some=20 > particular nails" but, in any case, nothing off the list will do). There= are=20 > worse cases, where the embedded reference is to a non-existent, but the=20 > external reference is to an existent: {mi senva le du'u lo pavyselrorne k= lama=20 > mi} might well be true, but {da poi pavyselrorne zo'u mi sevna le du'u d= a=20 > klama mi} is not, since there are no unicorns. [ what's a rorne? ] I was discussing this point with some people on IRC a while back, and bunk I say! bunk! Of course unicorns exist: they're concepts. If I say {mi djica lenu lo pavyseljirna cu klama ti} there's nothing wrong with the bridi, as I really do desire that su'o lo ro pavyseljirna come (even if ro =3D 0; the su'o is just the number I'm wanting). zo'o mi nelci le su'o su'o pavyseljirna cu zasti .i zo'o lo no pavyseljirna cu zasti Additionally, certainly you can dream a unicorn klama do, as unicorns *do* exist in dreams. With: da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi senva ledu'u da klama mi says "there is a unicorn such that I dreamt it came to me". Which (assuming the speaker isn't lying) is perfectly fine. That pavyseljirna exists as whatever it is that dreams/concepts are from a biological standpoint, etc. It should be noted also, that if I had actually had a dream, since I have the unicorn in mind already, the better sentence would be mi senva ledu'u le pavyseljirna cu klama mi Ok I'm done rambling about this stuff for now. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9iJdnDrrilS51AZ8RAicrAJ9XvqYkNxY9B6Yihcx3H1pbkhUP8gCgvcni moZEiv79pWehdDlVttGpcn0= =vkIa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62--