From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Apr 25 17:05:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 00:05:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 84339 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 00:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 00:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.235) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 00:05:18 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:05:18 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.45 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:05:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.45] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Three more issues Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:05:17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2001 00:05:18.0317 (UTC) FILETIME=[93DA51D0:01C0CDE4] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >#loi cinfo le fi'ortu'a cu xabju gi'enai xabju ># >#because that would claim that the same part of the total mass >#of lions both lives and does not live in Africa. > >Isn't there a scope issue here, if "loi ro lo cinfo" expands to "da >poi ke'a du pi su'o loi ro lo cinfon"? Then if da is within the scope of >"gi'enai" then you're right. If "gi'enai" is within the scope of >da then you're wrong. I was assuming scope by order of appearance, so "for some x, both F(x) and not F(x)". But now I'm not sure. If it were {e} I would have no doubt that order of appearance was the way to go. For {gi'e} now I do have some doubt, should it have bridi scope, the way {na} does? I can think of reasons to prefer each of the alternatives... >That said, I'm not sure that this "pi su'o" interpretation of >masses matches our intuitions about them, as witness the >example of weighing 100 kilos (where X weighs Y iff >the whole of X weighs Y). As I said in an earlier message >of today, the piro/pisu'o interpretation is determined by >the predicate. I use: {loi broda} = {pisu'o loi broda} = "some broda taken as a whole". {lei broda} = {piro lei broda} = "the broda I have in mind taken as a whole" The justification for the default {pisu'o} and {piro} is the same as for {su'o} and {ro} for {lo} and {le}. Of course {loi cukta cu ki'ogra li pimu ije loi cukta cu ki'ogra li mu} is true, it means "some bunch books weighs 0.5 kg and some bunch of books weighs 5 kg". {loi cukta} obviously cannot mean "_the_ mass of all books" if its quantifier is pisu'o. It means "some fraction of the mass of all books". And the book has that as the default. My discrepance with the book was about {lei}, I knew there was one but I got mixed up. Of course, translating {loi broda} as "THE mass of all broda" as it is usually done helps to the confusion. {pisu'o} can never be translated as "the"! >In cases where the pisu'o interpretations is appropriate, as >with "is sunburnt" or "lives in Africa", "X is sunburnt and >X na is sunburnt" and "X lives in Africa and X na lives >in Africa" make no sense but "X is sunburnt and >X na'e is sunburnt" and "X lives in Africa and X na'e lives >in Africa" do make good sense, so my conclusion is that >na-contradictions don't occur but na'e contradictions >do. By X do you mean a bound variable: "for some X, it is true that X is both broda and na'e broda", or do you mean it as a token for the words {loi broda}: "[pisu'o] loi brode cu broda ije [pisu'o] loi brode cu na'e broda". There is nothing contradictory about the second one. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.