Talk:How to use xorlo

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:01 GMT posts: 2388

> + * There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", but that is no longer the case. "lo > cribe" could be one, or a billion, or the idea > of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"), or > bear goo (as in after a car accident involving > a really, really big truck).

There are some problems (more or less well dealt with by distinguishing collective, distributive, and individual predication) with allowing {lo cribe} to refer to bearness in the way it refers to bears and, in any case, that would not be a good way to say that bears like honey. On the other hand, {lo cribe} does refer to bearness or something like it directly and bears only secondarily. That is, claims about bears are claims involving distributive or collective predication to the referent of {lo cribe}, claims about bearness involve individual predication to the refernt of {lo cribe}. To be sure, Lojban has no explicit marks for these different kinds of predication (as also not for the various modalities like "generally")which, consequently have to be discovered by context and, when contexts fails to give the right reading, by lengthy circumlocutions to what was intended. Better not to confuse the issue right now by mentioning bearness at all. The same applies to bear goo, for which {lo cribe} is not a good device — givne its other uses. At the best, {loi cribe} would seem called for, and {loi cribe pagbu} or {loi cribe spisa} would be clearer.

> * A side effect of the above is that in xorlo, > if you mean "one bear", consider actually > saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more > specific. xorxes points out that to refer to > one bear, "lo pa cribe" is actually a bit > better; "pa cribe cu broda" means that exactly > one cribe in the whole world brodas, which is > often not what you want. We (those of us that > have actually been using xorlo for the last few > months; there are at least half a dozen active > users on #lojban now) have found that context > is almost always sufficient, however. > > > > > > > The new page content follows below. > > > ! About xorlo > > "xorlo" is our (the baupla fuzykamni's) pet > name for the gadri (articles, like "the" and > "a" in English) BPFK proposal written mostly by > xorxes. It has the advantage of being a > gismu form. [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri The gadri > proposal] (which has now been accepted by a > vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK, although it is > technically subject to future changes until we > declare ourselves done) is quite complete, but > rather full of technical jargon. > > Also, it's the biggest change we (the BPFK) > have made to the language, and, God willin' and > the creek don't rise, the biggest one we'll > ever make. By far. > > Hence, a tutorial seems prudent. > > Something that needs to be noted in general: > we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we > do not make rulings on ontological or > metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell > you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. > That is discussion and speaker specific, and > not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi > kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally > means "there exists one thing that is a unicorn > that I am hunting"; this implies that at least > one unicorn exists) is perfectly reasonable, in > others it's a reason to put someone in a mental > hospital. In a similar vein, "lo" is now > completely generic. This means that there > are going to be disagreements about how broad > it can be. For example, I think that "bear > goo" is perfectly validly "lo cribe". Arnt > does not. That's OK, albeit somewhat obnoxious > should I ever need to talk about "bear > goo". Of course, I can just use "lo pesxu be > lo cribe". > > !! General Notes > > If you choose to read the proposal itself, > there are a couple of things you should know. > If you just want the high-level overview, and > have no intention of reading the proposal, skip > this section. > > * "distributively" means "not as a group", and > is a term we owe largely to > McKay15px|(external link), > whom we should give money to or something. > (xorxes says that we were using it before him; > I still think it helped). Basically, "three > men carried the piano" when handled > distributively means that they each carried > it. lo, le, and la are all distributive. The > outer quantifier of loi, lei and lai is > distributive over groups of number indicated by > the inner quantifier. > * "non-distributively" means "as a group". > "Three men carried the piano" when handled > non-distributively means that they all did it. > * There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", but that is no longer the case. "lo > cribe" could be one, or a billion, or the idea > of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"), or > bear goo (as in after a car accident involving > a really, really big truck). > * A side effect of the above is that in xorlo, > if you mean "one bear", consider actually > saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more > specific. xorxes points out that to refer to > one bear, "lo pa cribe" is actually a bit > better; "pa cribe cu broda" means that exactly > one cribe in the whole world brodas, which is > often not what you want. We (those of us that > have actually been using xorlo for the last few > months; there are at least half a dozen active > users on #lojban now) have found that context > is almost always sufficient, however. > > !! lo > > lo is where the biggest changes occured. In > fact, it's fair to say that everything but the > changes to lo (and to default quantification) > were mere clarifications. Here's how lo works > now: > > * lo is the default gadri; if in doubt, use lo > * lo with no outer or inner quantifier is > absolutely generic; "lo broda" means > "something(s) or other to do with broda", and > that's about it. Thankfully, context is plenty > 99% of the time. Expect to see a lot more lo! > * In particular, you almost always want "lo nu" > rather than "le nu". "lo nu" is "some event of > ...", "le nu" is "some particular event of ... > that I have in mind". > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly > the same thing as just sticking a number before > an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == "mu bakni" == > "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five > things that really are cows". > * lo's inner quantifier indicates the number if > things we're talking about, but in a slightly > different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo > pipno" means "Five cows each carried a piano > individually". "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" > is ambiguous as to whether they did it > individually or as a group. To be clear about > group-ness, use loi and friends. > * The above is actually a substantial change; > "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" used to mean > "All the cows in the universe, of which there > are 5, carry the piano". That sucked. It is > still possible to say the above in xorlo, but I > don't remember the easy way off the top of my > head; someone please replace this with an > example of that. > > !! le > > message truncated

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
16px|top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Aug., 2005 00:01 GMT posts: 2388

> - * There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", but that is no longer the case. "lo > cribe" could be one, or a billion, or none > (although expect listener hostility!!), or the > idea of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"), > or bear goo (as in after a car accident > involving a really, really big truck). > + * There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", but that is no longer the case. "lo > cribe" could be one, or a billion, or the idea > of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"), or > bear goo (as in after a car accident involving > a really, really big truck).

Dropping the "none" provision for {lo cribe} creates some small problems, particularly in intensional contexts (as it were). If {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is meant to be true and {djica2} is not to be learned as an unmarked opaque place -- as xorxes clearly does not want to do — then the sentence must be able to be true when there are no unicorns (the extension {i ku'i lo pavyseljirna na zasti} is compatible with the the sentence given). On the other hand, of course, {lo cribe cu danlu} should not be true if there are bears and none of them are animals. Perhaps that distinction needs to be noted.

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 26 of Dec., 2004 17:06 GMT

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, webmaster@lojban.org wrote: > Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. ... > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly the same thing as just sticking a number before an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five things that really are cows".

Was the "really are" intended?

>From what I understand, "lo" is no longer makes a statement that a {lo broda} "really is" a broda (or "really does" broda)... so wouldn't {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things that are cows", without the "really"?

> * A fractional outer quantifier selects a portion of the group. So "pa pi re loi xa bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means that one half of some group of six cows (i.e. 3 cows) carried the piano.

Does {pa pi re} mean "one half", then? I read it as "1.2", which — as a fraction — for me means "six-fifths". So {pa pi re loi xa bakni ....} is a bridi talking about 7.2 out of 6 cows which do something or other. Misunderstanding on my part, or mistake in the example sentence? (Perhaps {fi'u} was meant instead of {pi}?)

mu'o mi'e .filip. --

Philip Newton

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Mon 27 of Dec., 2004 02:16 GMT posts: 2388

> > ! About xorlo > > "xorlo" is our (the baupla fuzykamni's) pet > name for the gadri (articles, like "the" and > "a" in English) BPFK proposal written mostly by > xorxes. It has the advantage of being a > gismu form. [http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+gadri The gadri > proposal] (which has now been accepted by a > vote of 11 to 0 by the BPFK, although it is > technically subject to future changes until we > declare ourselves done) is quite complete, but > rather full of technical jargon.

I won't rehearse all the reasons that this acceptance was a Bad Idea, but we are now seeing one part of the problem: since the proposal is internally contradictory, everything follows from it and thus we get "explanations" which push even beyond the already wrongheaded changes clearly made in the original proposal.

> Also, it's the biggest change we (the BPFK) > have made to the language, and, God willin' and > the creek don't rise, the biggest one we'll > ever make. By far. > > Hence, a tutorial seems prudent. > > Something that needs to be noted in general: > we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we > do not make rulings on ontological or > metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell > you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. > That is discussion and speaker specific, and > not our job. In some discussions, saying "mi > kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which litterally > means "there exists one thing that is a > unicorn, and I am hunting it")

That's not what it means literally at all. That pa lo pavyseljirna exists is at most a pragmatic implication, which, given the usual meaning of {kalte}, does not go through. Because Lojban does not mark its intensional contexts well -- and every effort to get it to do so has been rejected by the same people who keep mucking up with them — this expression does allow the inference to something like {pa da poi pavyseljirna se kalte mi} which does mean the claimed literal meaning but which can be false even when the original (as usually understood) is true . The language — putatively logical in some way — thus justifies and invalid inference, not a very logical thing to do

>is perfectly > reasonable, in others it's a reason to put > someone in a mental hospital. In a similar > vein, "lo" is now completely generic. This > means that there are going to be disagreements > about how broad it can be.

Hey, there are arguments about what, if anyhting, that means at all. If we are going to make major changes, we ought at least be clear what the Hell they are. As it stands, the calim that something is generic has been used to justify a number of incompatible and impossible claims. Perhaps, rather this primer should start with a definition or at least an explanation of what "generic" means — and "completely gneric" even more so. As it stands, this is a loophole which might be used to drive any truck one wanted through (and has been).


For example, I > think that "bear goo" is perfectly validly "lo > cribe". Arnt does not. That's OK, albeit > somewhat obnoxious should I ever need to > talk about "bear goo". Of course, I can just > use "lo pesxu be lo cribe".

{loi spisa be lo cribe} makes more sense for what "bear goo" usually means in this context.


> !! General Notes > > If you choose to read the proposal itself, > there are a couple of things you should know. > If you just want the high-level overview, and > have no intention of reading the proposal, skip > this section. > > * "distributively" means "not as a group", and > is a term we owe largely to > McKay(external link), > whom we should give money to or something. > Basically, "three men carried the piano" when > handled distributively means that they each > carried it. lo, le, and la are all > distributive. The outer quantifier of loi, > lei and lai is distributive over groups of > number indicated by the inner quantifier.

Do what? Can you give an example of what this might possibly mean — or better what it really is intended to mean. I have a problem also (ib addition to the muddled expression here) with the notion of a quantifier being distributive, though I think it may come clear when the rest of this passage is laid out (and I have read McKay and discussed with him about some things in his system even).

> * "non-distributively" means "as a group". > "Three men carried the piano" when handled > distributively means that they all did it.

That is they all did it *together* no one — or even two — of them did it on his (their) own.

> * There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", but that is no longer the case. "lo > cribe" could be one, or a billion, or none > (although expect listener hostility!!), or the > idea of bear-ness (as in "bears like honey"), > or bear goo (as in after a car accident > involving a really, really big truck).

This is an incredibly huge move away from clarity

and precision toward hopeless muck. If I cannot tell whether you are talking about a thing or a concept or a mass (in the real — non-Lojban -- sense), how am I to judge the truth of what you say, since I don't know what you may well claim to have said (a claim I can't check). Context only helps so far and assumes that some things in the context are settled; this leaves it all up in the air. It is also not even hinted at (except in saying {lo} is generic) in the original proposal — either version.

> * A side effect of the above is that in xorlo, > if you mean "one bear", consider actually > saying "pa cribe". It's ever so much more > specific.

Nu? Of course specifying the exact number is more specific than not specifying. What does that have to do with the case? Does {lo cribe} mean "one bear" or "one concept of a bear" or "one puddle of bear goo?" Hopefully only the first.

>We (those of us that have actually > been using xorlo for the last few months; there > are at least half a dozen active users on > #lojban now) have found that context is almost > always sufficient, however. > > !! lo > > lo is where the biggest changes occured. In > fact, it's fair to say that everything but the > changes to lo (and to default quantification) > were mere clarifications. Here's how lo works > now: > > * lo is the default gadri; if in doubt, use lo > * lo with no outer or inner quantifier is > absolutely generic; "lo broda" means > "something(s) or other to do with broda", and > that's about it. Thankfully, context is plenty > 99% of the time.

An optimistic estimate.

> Expect to see a lot more lo! > * In particular, you almost always want "lo nu" > rather than "le nu". "lo nu" is "some event of > ...", "le nu" is "some particular event of ... > that I have in mind". > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly > the same thing as just sticking a number before > an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == "mu bakni" == > "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five > things that really are cows"

Whoa, Nelly. If {mu lo bakni} is just the same as {mu bakni} then it does not mean anything like that but rather "five things that are somehow related to cows", possibly a cow, a cow pie, a side of beef, a quart of milk, and cowness. You can't have it both ways, unless you want to say that {mu bakni} really is different from {mu lo bakni} (which might make sense for other reasons as well).

> * lo's inner quantifier indicates the number if > things we're talking about, but in a slightly > different fashion. "mu lo bakni cu bevri lo > pipno" means "There were 5 cows; each of them > carried a piano individually". "lo mu bakni cu > bevri lo pipno" is ambiguous as to whether they > did it individually or as a group. To be clear > about group-ness, use loi and friends.

While having a vague (not really ambiguous: it doesn't mean both, just fails to mean either) expression is useful, it isalso useful to have a very clear distributive expression, not necessarily involving quantifiers — a job {lo} used to do. Note by the way that no diddling with the form of sumti will ever completely cover the distributive-nondistributive distinction.

> * The above is actually a substantial change; > "lo mu bakni cu bevri lo pipno" used to mean > "All the cows in the universe, of which there > are 5, carry the piano". That sucked. It is > still possible to say the above in xorlo, but I > don't remember the easy way off the top of my > head; someone please replace this with an > example of that.

Yes, this is not a wrongheaded idea!

> !! le > > le is basically unchanged. Because it now > carries more baggage then lo, rather than > less as before, it is no longer the default > choice for the discerning Lojbanist. In my > post-xorlo writings, lo outnumbers le by about > three to one (at a guess). I only use le when > I'm talking about a specific item.

That was always the rule, wasn't it? I think there was some dispute about just where specificity kicked in but that is about all.

> * le is used for particular things you have in > mind. > * Because you have them in mind in your own > mind, it implies that your definition of > whatever (i.e. bakni in "le bakni") may not > agree with everyone elses (hence the famous "le > nanmu cu ninmu" for a crossdresser example).

So, {lo} is always appropriate whenever {le} because by using {le bakni} you have established that the thing has something to do with cows. This is another change-- or rather another odd consequence of the earlier mentioned changes.

> * If you wish to use le and not have the > implication that you might be messing with your > user's head, you can use "le je'u ", > but in practice we all assume that you're not > being a jerk and that the selbri after le > actually matches reality as you understand it. > * The outer and inner quantifiers of le act > exactly like xorlo for most purposes. > > !! la > > la is unchanged save for clarification. > > * la has no inner quantifier; a number after la > is considered part of the name. > * la's outer quantifier is just like lo's. > > !! The lVi Series > > This is loi, lei, and lai. They act exactly > like lo, le and la, respectively, except that: > > * They make things into groups (aka masses, aka > non-distributive groups) for purposes of the > rest of the bridi. For example, "loi mu bakni > cu bevri lo pipno" definately means that > all the cows carried the piano together, as a > group.

Since in the real world a nondistributive group is a very narrowly specified mathematical object and a mass is a fairly clearly defined linguistic concept, it turns out to be a good idea to call what we have here bunches (or something else of that sort).

> * The inner quantifier (which lai does not > have) indicates the size of the group. > * You almost always want to use an inner > quantifier with loi and lei, not an outer one. > This may take a bit of getting used to.

Why?

> * The outer quantifier gives a number of > groups. These are not then grouped together! > This means that "re loi mu bakni cu bevri lo > pipno" means that there are two groups of five > cows, and that each group of five cows carried > the piano.

A major change and one for which an adequate (indeed any) justification has never been presented (except that one person used it that way a lot, possibly originally by mistake).

> * That example should give an idea of the power > of xorlo; some very specific things can be > said in xorlo very easily.

Frinstance? The description here sugests that saying anything specific is going to be very hard, much harder than saying some of the "new easy expressions" in the old system.

> * Note that it is not necessarily the case that > those two groups of five cows are completely > distinct. They could share some members in > common. Using this fact without making it > clear to your listener you are doing so, > however, is very poor form. > * A fractional outer quantifier selects a > portion of the group. So "pa pi re loi xa > bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means that one half of > some group of six cows (i.e. 3 cows) carried > the message truncated

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Mon 27 of Dec., 2004 02:16 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, > webmaster@lojban.org > wrote: > > Something that needs to be noted in general: > we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we > do not make rulings on ontological or > metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell > you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. > ... > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is > exactly the same thing as just sticking a > number before an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty much as > before: "five things that really are cows". > > Was the "really are" intended?

In one part of the proposal, "really are" is all that separates {lo} from {le}, in another this is not the case, though not to the extent it is in the unfolding of the proposal (after it has been acdcepted).

> From what I understand, "lo" is no longer makes > a statement that a {lo > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really does" > broda)... so wouldn't {mu > lo bakni} be closer to "five things that are > cows", without the > "really"?

How can something be a cow and not really be a cow. The new expplanation of the proposal is that it is five things that are related to cows, not necessarily cows at all, let alone really ones. But partt of the proposal does als say that they are really cows.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT posts: 14214

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, webmaster@lojban.org > wrote: > > Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made > > a consensus decision that we do not make rulings on > > ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not tell > > you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. > ... > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is exactly the same thing > > as just sticking a number before an item (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == > > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty much as before: "five > > things that really are cows". > > Was the "really are" intended? > > >From what I understand, "lo" is no longer makes a statement that > >a {lo > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really does" broda)... so wouldn't > {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things that are cows", without > the "really"?

You're conflating {mu lo bakni} with {lo bakni}. The former has an outer quantifier, the latter does not. The meanings are not the same. It is assumed that you wouldn't talk about a number of cows unless you actually wished to talk about cows.

> > * A fractional outer quantifier selects a portion of the > > group. So "pa pi re loi xa bakni cu bevri lo pipno" means that > > one half of some group of six cows (i.e. 3 cows) carried the > > piano. > > Does {pa pi re} mean "one half", then?

No, that was a mistake. I meant "pi mu".

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT

On Monday 27 December 2004 00:47, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > > Does {pa pi re} mean "one half", then? > > No, that was a mistake. I meant "pi mu".

Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure}, or {pira'epavorebimuze} or {fi'uze}?

phma -- Maintenant, j'ai besoin d'une loupe pour trouver mes lunettes! -Les Perles de la médecine

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 12:57:10AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 27 December 2004 00:47, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > > > Does {pa pi re} mean "one half", then? > > > > No, that was a mistake. I meant "pi mu". > > Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure}, or > {pira'epavorebimuze} or {fi'uze}?

xorxes believes that we have only handled the first (and possibly the third, but I have *no* idea what it means). He believes, IIRC, that we should handle fi'u as an outer quantifier in the section for fi'u, and I care not at all so I've accepted that.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT

On Monday 27 December 2004 01:03, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 12:57:10AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure}, or > > {pira'epavorebimuze} or {fi'uze}? > > xorxes believes that we have only handled the first (and possibly > the third, but I have *no* idea what it means). He believes, IIRC, > that we should handle fi'u as an outer quantifier in the section for > fi'u, and I care not at all so I've accepted that.

li pira'epavorebimuze du li fi'uze. What about {cifi'ure}? I think, if {fi'ure loi xa bakni} means half of a group of six cows, and {re loi xa bakni} means two groups of six cows, {cifi'ure loi xa bakni} should mean one group of six cows and half of another group.

phma -- Without glasses, I can't even distinguish smells... -Les Perles de la médecine

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:38:54AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday 27 December 2004 01:03, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 12:57:10AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure}, or > > > {pira'epavorebimuze} or {fi'uze}? > > > > xorxes believes that we have only handled the first (and > > possibly the third, but I have *no* idea what it means). He > > believes, IIRC, that we should handle fi'u as an outer > > quantifier in the section for fi'u, and I care not at all so > > I've accepted that. > > li pira'epavorebimuze du li fi'uze.

No, actually. One is a number, the other is a fraction that represents that number, *sort* of. "li fi'u ze" is "one over seven"; the fraction you gave is "li pa fe'i ze". To what extent these things are identical is unclear. Certainly they are different words, at the least.

> What about {cifi'ure}? I think, if {fi'ure loi xa bakni} means > half of a group of six cows,

That's what xorxes wants to argue. I don't know what he wants "fi'u re loi bakni " to mean (although I expect "one out of every two", which is not the same as "half", exactly).

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:27 GMT

On Monday 27 December 2004 01:54, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:38:54AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > li pira'epavorebimuze du li fi'uze. > > No, actually. One is a number, the other is a fraction that > represents that number, *sort* of. "li fi'u ze" is "one over seven"; > the fraction you gave is "li pa fe'i ze". To what extent these > things are identical is unclear. Certainly they are different > words, at the least.

They are both numbers ({fi'u} and {ra'e} are both in PA), and they are the same number. If I wanted to say that the *symbols* used to represent the same number are different, I'd say {me'o pira'epavorebimuze na du me'o fi'uze}.

phma -- My monthly periods happen once per year. -Les Perles de la médecine

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:28 GMT posts: 1912

> Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure}, or {pira'epavorebimuze} > or > {fi'uze}?

I propose to use {PA1 fi'u PA2 sumti} to mean "PA1 out of every PA2 referents of sumti", whereas {pi PA sumti} is reserved for "A piPA fraction of one of the referents of sumti".

That two number expressions have the same li value does not mean that they can't represent different quantifiers. A quantifier is not a number, it is a bridi operator.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:28 GMT

Pierre Abbat scripsit:

> Does it matter whether one says {pimu} or {fi'ure} ...?

In a context of exact numbers, no. Where measurements are in question, .5 suggests an accuracy of one decimal place, whereas 1/2 suggests perfect (unattainable) accuracy.

-- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Perform swift circular ambulation, http://www.reutershealth.com With loud and high-pitched ululation.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:28 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, > Philip Newton wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, > webmaster@lojban.org > > wrote: > > > Something that needs to be noted in > general: we, the BPFK, made > > > a consensus decision that we do not > make rulings on > > > ontological or metaphysical issues; that > is, we will not tell > > > you whether phrase X has meaning or > validity. > > ... > > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is > exactly the same thing > > > as just sticking a number before an item > (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == > > > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty > much as before: "five > > > things that really are cows". > > > > Was the "really are" intended? > > > > >From what I understand, "lo" is no longer > makes a statement that > > >a {lo > > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really does" > broda)... so wouldn't > > {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things that > are cows", without > > the "really"? > > You're conflating {mu lo bakni} with {lo > bakni}. The former has an > outer quantifier, the latter does not. The > meanings are not the > same. It is assumed that you wouldn't talk > about a number of cows > unless you actually wished to talk about cows.

But you might want to talk about a number (5 in this case) of things that are related to cows somehow, i.e., to specify the number of lo bakni of current interest.

> > > * A fractional outer quantifier selects a > portion of the > > > group. So "pa pi re loi xa bakni cu bevri > lo pipno" means that > > > one half of some group of six cows (i.e. 3 > cows) carried the > > > piano. > > > > Does {pa pi re} mean "one half", then? > > No, that was a mistake. I meant "pi mu". > > -Robin > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:28 GMT

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > li pira'epavorebimuze du li fi'uze. > > No, actually. One is a number, the other is a fraction that > represents that number, *sort* of. "li fi'u ze" is "one over seven"; > the fraction you gave is "li pa fe'i ze". To what extent these > things are identical is unclear. Certainly they are different > words, at the least.

They are different *words*, but they represent the same *entity*, which is what "du" is all about. la kikeros. du la tulis. (Cicero is Tully) not because the names are the same, but because the referent is the same: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator.

-- Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan --Golda Meir jcowan@reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 03:28 GMT posts: 2388

> Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > li pira'epavorebimuze du li fi'uze. > > > > No, actually. One is a number, the other is a > fraction that > > represents that number, *sort* of. "li fi'u > ze" is "one over seven"; > > the fraction you gave is "li pa fe'i ze". To > what extent these > > things are identical is unclear. Certainly > they are different > > words, at the least. > > They are different *words*, but they represent > the same *entity*, which > is what "du" is all about. la kikeros. du la > tulis. (Cicero is Tully) > not because the names are the same, but because > the referent is the > same: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman > orator. > {kikeron} and {tulius} — native usage trumps English habits.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 06:59:31AM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, > > Philip Newton wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, > > webmaster@lojban.org > > > wrote: > > > > Something that needs to be noted in > > general: we, the BPFK, made > > > > a consensus decision that we do not > > make rulings on > > > > ontological or metaphysical issues; that > > is, we will not tell > > > > you whether phrase X has meaning or > > validity. > > > ... > > > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is > > exactly the same thing > > > > as just sticking a number before an item > > (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == > > > > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty > > much as before: "five > > > > things that really are cows". > > > > > > Was the "really are" intended? > > > > > > >From what I understand, "lo" is no longer > > makes a statement that > > > >a {lo > > > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really does" > > broda)... so wouldn't > > > {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things that > > are cows", without > > > the "really"? > > > > You're conflating {mu lo bakni} with {lo > > bakni}. The former has an > > outer quantifier, the latter does not. The > > meanings are not the > > same. It is assumed that you wouldn't talk > > about a number of cows > > unless you actually wished to talk about cows. > > But you might want to talk about a number (5 in > this case) of things that are related to cows > somehow, i.e., to specify the number of lo bakni > of current interest.

That's {lo mu bakni}.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:09 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 06:59:31AM -0800, John > E Clifford wrote: > > > > --- Robin Lee Powell > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 04:03:32PM +0100, > > > Philip Newton wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:38:17 -0800, > > > webmaster@lojban.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > Something that needs to be noted in > > > general: we, the BPFK, made > > > > > a consensus decision that we do > not > > > make rulings on > > > > > ontological or metaphysical issues; > that > > > is, we will not tell > > > > > you whether phrase X has meaning or > > > validity. > > > > ... > > > > > * lo with an outer quantifier, which is > > > exactly the same thing > > > > > as just sticking a number before an > item > > > (i.e. "mu lo bakni" == > > > > > "mu bakni" == "five cows), works pretty > > > much as before: "five > > > > > things that really are cows". > > > > > > > > Was the "really are" intended? > > > > > > > > >From what I understand, "lo" is no > longer > > > makes a statement that > > > > >a {lo > > > > broda} "really is" a broda (or "really > does" > > > broda)... so wouldn't > > > > {mu lo bakni} be closer to "five things > that > > > are cows", without > > > > the "really"? > > > > > > You're conflating {mu lo bakni} with {lo > > > bakni}. The former has an > > > outer quantifier, the latter does not. The > > > meanings are not the > > > same. It is assumed that you wouldn't talk > > > about a number of cows > > > unless you actually wished to talk about > cows. > > > > But you might want to talk about a number (5 > in > > this case) of things that are related to cows > > somehow, i.e., to specify the number of lo > bakni > > of current interest. > > That's {lo mu bakni}.

Isn't that some group of groups of five things related to cows? How do you say "five of the things just referred to as {lo bakni}"?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:09 GMT posts: 1912

> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > That's {lo mu bakni}. > > Isn't that some group of groups of five things > related to cows? > How do you say "five of the things just referred > to as {lo bakni}"?

It depends what you want to say.

If you want to refer to five of the things just referred to, then {lo mu lo bakni} for example would serve. If you don't want to refer to them, but you want to say that exactly five of those just referred to do something or other, then {mu lo bakni} would be appropriate.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:09 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > > That's {lo mu bakni}. > > > > Isn't that some group of groups of five > things > > related to cows? > > How do you say "five of the things just > referred > > to as {lo bakni}"? > > It depends what you want to say. > > If you want to refer to five of the things just > referred > to, then {lo mu lo bakni} for example would > serve. If you > don't want to refer to them, but you want to > say that exactly > five of those just referred to do something or > other, then > {mu lo bakni} would be appropriate.

I am afraid I don't quite follow what is going on here. I gather that you want "refer" to have some special sense, involving perhaps identification or specification or whatever. Could you give an example of the difference. We have some sentence involving {lo bakni}, referring to some group of things related to cows. I want to say that five of those things do such and such. And have said that, I want to go on and say some more things about those five. Do I use {mu lo bakni} both times or {lo mu lo bakni} both times or the short form the first time and the long form the second (or, I suppose, conversely)?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:09 GMT posts: 1912

> I am afraid I don't quite follow what is going on > here. I gather that you want "refer" to have > some special sense, involving perhaps > identification or specification or whatever.

No, just the usual sense as far as I can tell. Terms that start with a gadri have referents. Quantifiers are bridi operators that say how many of the referents of the term they quantify satisfy the bridi the term is in.

> Could you give an example of the difference. We > have some sentence involving {lo bakni}, > referring to some group of things related to > cows.

_Related_ to cows? {lo bakni} refers to cows, not to things related to cows.

> I want to say that five of those things do > such and such.

ko'a goi lo mu lo bakni cu broda

> And have said that, I want to go > on and say some more things about those five.

ko'a brode

> Do > I use {mu lo bakni} both times or {lo mu lo > bakni} both times

The latter, preferrably linking them with a pronoun if it's the same five cows both times.

> or the short form the first > time and the long form the second

You could do that. You would not be referring to those five cows the first time, you would just be saying exactly how many out of the lot do something or other. Then the second time pragmatically one would assume that the five cows you are talking about are the ones that make the first sentence true.

> (or, I suppose, conversely)?

That would not have the same pragmatic implication, I would say.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by stevo on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:09 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 2004-12-27 9:20:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:


> In a context of exact numbers, no. Where measurements are in question, .5 > suggests an accuracy of one decimal place, whereas 1/2 suggests perfect > (unattainable) accuracy. > > — > John Cowan

I interpret 1/2 as being to the nearest half, so its precision is 1/5 that of 0.5.

stevo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:10 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > I am afraid I don't quite follow what is > going on > > here. I gather that you want "refer" to have > > some special sense, involving perhaps > > identification or specification or whatever. > > No, just the usual sense as far as I can tell. > Terms that start with a gadri have referents. > Quantifiers are bridi operators that say how > many > of the referents of the term they quantify > satisfy > the bridi the term is in.

You said <referred to, then {lo mu lo bakni} for example would serve. If you don't want to refer to them, but you want to say that exactly five of those just referred to do something or other, then {mu lo bakni} would be appropriate.>>

The difference between referring to five of the things just referred to and saying that five of the things just referred to do something or other is the distinction I am trying to get a grip on. I don't know how one says that five of the things do something or other without referring to them nor can I see any likely point in referring to five of these guys without saying that they do (or are) something or other.

> > Could you give an example of the difference. > We > > have some sentence involving {lo bakni}, > > referring to some group of things related to > > cows. > > _Related_ to cows? {lo bakni} refers to cows, > not to things related to cows.

I am just going by the lesson which is meant to explain what the Hell "generic reference" is all about. I see that that example was changed in the latest version of that page, thus making the notion of generic reference again obscure but less hopelessly stupid.

> > I want to say that five of those things do > > such and such. > > ko'a goi lo mu lo bakni cu broda > > > And have said that, I want to go > > on and say some more things about those five. > > > ko'a brode

Well, the interesting case would be one that used a full form rather than a pronoun. Suppose that, when I said {lo mu lo bakni cu broda} I had not decided to say more about them and so had not

{ko'a}d. What would {mu lo bakni cu broda} say?

> > Do > > I use {mu lo bakni} both times or {lo mu lo > > bakni} both times > > The latter, preferrably linking them with a > pronoun > if it's the same five cows both times. > > > or the short form the first > > time and the long form the second > > You could do that. You would not be referring > to those five > cows the first time, you would just be saying > exactly how > many out of the lot do something or other. Then > the second > time pragmatically one would assume that the > five cows you > are talking about are the ones that make the > first sentence > true.

AHAH. {mu lo bakni} is not a reference (as in older Lojban) to a bunch of five cows drawn from the bunch referred to by {lo bakni} but something less somehow — it tells howmany there are and what they do but without referring to them. How should the second reference to (well, the first

  • reference* but the second indication of)these

five cows be expressed in full form? I find this reading of {lo} perverse — but you know that.

> > (or, I suppose, conversely)? > > That would not have the same pragmatic > implication, I would > say.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:10 GMT posts: 1912

> AHAH. {mu lo bakni} is not a reference (as in > older Lojban) to a bunch of five cows drawn from > the bunch referred to by {lo bakni} but something > less somehow — it tells howmany there are and > what they do but without referring to them.

That's right, but that is not a change. Quantifiers in logic are bridi operators, they don't refer, and quantifiers in Lojban have always been the usual quantifiers of logic.

PA da zo'u da broda

says: the sentence "x broda" is satisfied by exactly PA things. It makes no reference to the things that satisfy the sentence, it only says exactly how many they are.

> How > should the second reference to (well, the first > *reference* but the second indication of)these > five cows be expressed in full form?

With {lo} in front you have a reference.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 04:11 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > AHAH. {mu lo bakni} is not a reference (as > in > > older Lojban) to a bunch of five cows drawn > from > > the bunch referred to by {lo bakni} but > something > > less somehow — it tells howmany there are > and > > what they do but without referring to them. > > That's right, but that is not a change. > Quantifiers > in logic are bridi operators, they don't refer, > and > quantifiers in Lojban have always been the > usual > quantifiers of logic. > > PA da zo'u da broda > > says: the sentence "x broda" is satisfied by > exactly PA things. > It makes no reference to the things that > satisfy the sentence, > it only says exactly how many they are.

That is of course a quantifier on a variable, not on a description. Are you suddenly going to be modular and insist that a quantifier in one context always behaves just like a quantifier in another (it won't even work on your system of course)? > > How > > should the second reference to (well, the > first > > *reference* but the second indication > of)these > > five cows be expressed in full form? > > With {lo} in front you have a reference. >

I think I prefer the old way and still need to see some reason for changing. It can't be practicality nor modularity nor consistency, so what is it that is so pressing as to change 50 years of work? I note again, of course, that none of this is in the offical definitions as given (unless they have changed recently).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 28 of Dec., 2004 07:46 GMT

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:05:10 EST, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > In a message dated 2004-12-27 9:20:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jcowan@reutershealth.com writes: > > > In a context of exact numbers, no. Where measurements are in question, .5 > > suggests an accuracy of one decimal place, whereas 1/2 suggests perfect > > (unattainable) accuracy. > > I interpret 1/2 as being to the nearest half, so its precision is 1/5 that > of 0.5.

Same — I don't interpret "8½×11" paper as being 8.50000000 by 11.000000 inches, for example. Or a baby being born which is described as "20½ inches long" as having a length of 20.50 inches — more like 20.5. (And possibly with an error of 0.125 in either way, rather than merely 0.05 in which I might expect had the weight been given in decimal numbers.)

Cheers, --

Philip Newton

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 1912

> That is of course a quantifier on a variable, not > on a description. Are you suddenly going to be > modular and insist that a quantifier in one > context always behaves just like a quantifier in > another (it won't even work on your system of > course)?

PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

> I note again, of course, that none of this is in > the offical definitions as given (unless they > have changed recently).

It's been there for months, and you have commented profusely on it, so you can't say you haven't seen it before.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > That is of course a quantifier on a variable, > not > > on a description. Are you suddenly going to > be > > modular and insist that a quantifier in one > > context always behaves just like a quantifier > in > > another (it won't even work on your system of > > course)? > > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

So you say. I see no reason to think this is correct (never mind worrying about circularity.

> > > I note again, of course, that none of this is > in > > the offical definitions as given (unless they > > have changed recently). > > It's been there for months, and you have > commented > profusely on it, so you can't say you haven't > seen it > before.

I meant in either of the pieces called definitions. The add-ons are another matter entirely.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 1912

> > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti > > So you say. I see no reason to think this is > correct

It's a definition.

> (never mind worrying about circularity.

It's not circular. You can trust me about that, or you can check it out for yourself. (Or else show us how it is circular.)

> I meant in either of the pieces called > definitions. The add-ons are another matter entirely.

The definition in English says:

"An outer quantifier can be used to quantify distributively over such individuals."

The formal definition is the one I wrote above, and says the same thing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > > PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti > > > > So you say. I see no reason to think this is > > correct > > It's a definition.

A definition for xorlan; I meant Lojban (as you know).


> > I meant in either of the pieces called > > definitions. The add-ons are another matter > entirely. > > The definition in English says: > > "An outer quantifier can be used to quantify > distributively > over such individuals." > > The formal definition is the one I wrote above, > and says > the same thing. > As you know, I meant the definitions of {lo}, from which none of this follows nor with which none is demonstrated compatible (although, since taken together they are contradictory, everything follows).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 2388

Still working on the strange use of "refer" that seems to play some role here, is the following reasnably correct:

If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the sentences involved might be made true by two (at least partially) different bunches of cows. In neither case are the cows referred to.

If I want to be sure that it is the same bunch of cows the second time, I should use {lo mu lo bakni} which assures that the reference in the second case is to the cows that made the first case true (but which were not there referred to).

If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first case I not only claim that there are exactly five cows that make the sentence involved true but I also refer to them.

I am still unclear about why {mu lo bakni} does not refer to the the cows. I am not even clear why {Q da} doesn't rfer to what makes the sentence true, labeit without giving a lot of information about them — but that is not required for reference. I suppose this is just definitional at some level, but it seems to be making a difference and to be somehow involved a justification for some of the innovations that you are foisting on Lojban.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> Still working on the strange use of "refer" > that > seems to play some role here, is the following > reasnably correct: > > If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the sentences > involved might be made true by two (at least > partially) different bunches of cows. In > neither > case are the cows referred to. > > If I want to be sure that it is the same bunch > of > cows the second time, I should use {lo mu lo > bakni} which assures that the reference in the > second case is to the cows that made the first > case true (but which were not there referred > to). > > If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first case I > not > only claim that there are exactly five cows > that > make the sentence involved true but I also > refer > to them. > > I am still unclear about why {mu lo bakni} does > not refer to the the cows. I am not even clear > why {Q da} doesn't refer to what makes the > sentence true, labeit without giving a lot of > information about them — but that is not > required for reference. I suppose this is just > definitional at some level, but it seems to be > making a difference and to be somehow involved > a > justification for some of the innovations that > you are foisting on Lojban.

<>

In my mind the fact that I can meaningfully talk about picking out even pragmatically the the five cows that made the earlier sentence true means that they have already been introduced into the context and I am unclear how that is done if not by reference: they are the values of the variables (if you insist that there are variables in this case) in the first reference as they are the values of {lo mu lo bakni} in the second (Actually, of course, it is the bunch of them that is the value in each case, or if you want to insist that {mu lo bakni} is really {mu da poi bakni}, quite independent of whatever {lo bakni} refers to, the the second refers to the bunch of those cows referred to eventually in the first.I assume we are not yet doing plural interpretations) As I said somehwere earlier, we are constructing the model as we go here and so what we bring with sumti of any sort go into the model as the reality end of the reference function. If I can tell that there are five, I can tell which ones they are in a sufficient way — though maybe in only a rather a rather vague. I can, however, know whether it is the same five involved at the next stage.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:31 GMT posts: 1912

> --- John E Clifford > wrote: > > Still working on the strange use of "refer" > > that > > seems to play some role here, is the following > > reasnably correct:

(I will answer assuming we are now talking of the definitions approved by the BPFK.)

> > If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the sentences > > involved might be made true by two (at least > > partially) different bunches of cows. In > > neither > > case are the cows referred to.

Right. For example:

mu lo bakni cu blabi ije mu lo bakni cu ca'o citka Five cows are white, and five cows are eating.

I am not saying how many cows (if any) are both white and eating. It could be anywhere from zero to five.

> > If I want to be sure that it is the same bunch > > of > > cows the second time, I should use {lo mu lo > > bakni} which assures that the reference in the > > second case is to the cows that made the first > > case true (but which were not there referred > > to).

No assurance, no. It may be the most likely assumption, but that would depend on context.

> > If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first case I > > not > > only claim that there are exactly five cows > > that > > make the sentence involved true but I also > > refer > > to them.

No, you don't claim that there are exactly five cows that make the sentence true, there may be more. You refer to exactly five cows, and claim, of those, that they make the sentence true.

> > I am still unclear about why {mu lo bakni} does > > not refer to the the cows.

Because quantifiers are bridi operators, they don't create a referring term.

> In my mind the fact that I can meaningfully talk > about picking out even pragmatically the the five > cows that made the earlier sentence true means > that they have already been introduced into the > context and I am unclear how that is done if not > by reference:

Because you don't need to pick anything to claim that five do something. The claim is meaningful without any reference going on.

> they are the values of the > variables (if you insist that there are variables > in this case) in the first reference as they are > the values of {lo mu lo bakni} in the second

The variables take _all_ the values of their range, not just those values that make the sentence true.

> As I said somehwere earlier, we are constructing > the model as we go here and so what we bring with > sumti of any sort go into the model as the > reality end of the reference function.

Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does refer. Possibly and probably to more than five cows. All of those referents (not just the five that make the sentence true) do go into the model.

> If I can > tell that there are five, I can tell which ones > they are in a sufficient way — though maybe in > only a rather a rather vague. I can, however, > know whether it is the same five involved at the > next stage.

When you want to do reference, you can.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > --- John E Clifford > > > wrote: > > > Still working on the strange use of "refer" > > > that > > > seems to play some role here, is the > following > > > reasnably correct: > > (I will answer assuming we are now talking of > the > definitions approved by the BPFK.) > > > > If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the sentences > > > involved might be made true by two (at > least > > > partially) different bunches of cows. In > > > neither > > > case are the cows referred to. > > Right. For example: > > mu lo bakni cu blabi ije mu lo bakni cu ca'o > citka > Five cows are white, and five cows are > eating. > > I am not saying how many cows (if any) are both > white > and eating. It could be anywhere from zero to > five. > > > > If I want to be sure that it is the same > bunch > > > of > > > cows the second time, I should use {lo mu > lo > > > bakni} which assures that the reference in > the > > > second case is to the cows that made the > first > > > case true (but which were not there > referred > > > to). > > No assurance, no. It may be the most likely > assumption, > but that would depend on context.

How do I get assurance? I can't use a pronoun since it only works if the reference is the same, but I have no reference yet.

> > > > If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first case > I > > > not > > > only claim that there are exactly five cows > > > that > > > make the sentence involved true but I also > > > refer > > > to them. > > No, you don't claim that there are exactly five > cows > that make the sentence true, there may be more. > You > refer to exactly five cows, and claim, of > those, that > they make the sentence true.

Good, we do agree on something.

> > > I am still unclear about why {mu lo bakni} > does > > > not refer to the the cows. > > Because quantifiers are bridi operators, they > don't > create a referring term.

Well, here is my problem: I believe that {lo bakni} for example is both a referring expression and a quantifier. Its being a quantifier — and a particuilar one at that — is the major part of what it means — for me — to say it is generic or non-specific. I don't quite understand what "bridi operator" means here that keeps it from making referring expressions. After all, the descriptor (even if you don't think it is a quantifer) is a bridi operator in the normal sense of the phrase and you hold it creates a referring expression. Is it the difference between a (to put this in Lojban terms) bridi-forming operator and a sumti-forming operator? If that is the case, then I will accept that it is the whole bridi which makes the reference, not just the term (though I don't really believe this).

> > In my mind the fact that I can meaningfully > talk > > about picking out even pragmatically the the > five > > cows that made the earlier sentence true > means > > that they have already been introduced into > the > > context and I am unclear how that is done if > not > > by reference: > > Because you don't need to pick anything to > claim that > five do something. The claim is meaningful > without > any reference going on.

I don't quite see how but then I am now perfectly sure that I don't understand your use of "refer." I wonder if there is some other terminology we could use that would make my point and eventually make your point clear.

> > they are the values of the > > variables (if you insist that there are > variables > > in this case) in the first reference as they > are > > the values of {lo mu lo bakni} in the second > > The variables take _all_ the values of their > range, > not just those values that make the sentence > true.

We are not talking about the reange but the values here. It is the values that are alluded to in a > > As I said somehwere earlier, we are > constructing > > the model as we go here and so what we bring > with > > sumti of any sort go into the model as the > > reality end of the reference function. > > Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does refer. > Possibly > and probably to more than five cows. All of > those > referents (not just the five that make the > sentence true) > do go into the model. > > > If I can > > tell that there are five, I can tell which > ones > > they are in a sufficient way — though maybe > in > > only a rather a rather vague. I can, > however, > > know whether it is the same five involved at > the > > next stage. > > When you want to do reference, you can. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- Jorge Llamb�as > > wrote: > > > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > --- John E Clifford > > > > > wrote: > > > > Still working on the strange use of > "refer" > > > > that > > > > seems to play some role here, is the > > following > > > > reasnably correct: > > > > (I will answer assuming we are now talking of > > the > > definitions approved by the BPFK.) > > > > > > If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the > sentences > > > > involved might be made true by two (at > > least > > > > partially) different bunches of cows. In > > > > neither > > > > case are the cows referred to. > > > > Right. For example: > > > > mu lo bakni cu blabi ije mu lo bakni cu > ca'o > > citka > > Five cows are white, and five cows are > > eating. > > > > I am not saying how many cows (if any) are > both > > white > > and eating. It could be anywhere from zero to > > five. > > > > > > If I want to be sure that it is the same > > bunch > > > > of > > > > cows the second time, I should use {lo mu > > lo > > > > bakni} which assures that the reference > in > > the > > > > second case is to the cows that made the > > first > > > > case true (but which were not there > > referred > > > > to). > > > > No assurance, no. It may be the most likely > > assumption, > > but that would depend on context. > > How do I get assurance? I can't use a pronoun > since it only works if the reference is the > same, > but I have no reference yet. > > > > > > > If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first > case > > I > > > > not > > > > only claim that there are exactly five > cows > > > > that > > > > make the sentence involved true but I > also > > > > refer > > > > to them. > > > > No, you don't claim that there are exactly > five > > cows > > that make the sentence true, there may be > more. > > You > > refer to exactly five cows, and claim, of > > those, that > > they make the sentence true. > > Good, we do agree on something. > > > > > I am still unclear about why {mu lo > bakni} > > does > > > > not refer to the the cows. > > > > Because quantifiers are bridi operators, they > > don't > > create a referring term. > > Well, here is my problem: I believe that {lo > bakni} for example is both a referring > expression > and a quantifier. Its being a quantifier -- > and > a particuilar one at that — is the major part > of > what it means — for me — to say it is generic > or non-specific. I don't quite understand what > "bridi operator" means here that keeps it from > making referring expressions. After all, the > descriptor (even if you don't think it is a > quantifer) is a bridi operator in the normal > sense of the phrase and you hold it creates a > referring expression. Is it the difference > between a (to put this in Lojban terms) > bridi-forming operator and a sumti-forming > operator? If that is the case, then I will > accept > that it is the whole bridi which makes the > reference, not just the term (though I don't > really believe this). > > > > In my mind the fact that I can meaningfully > > talk > > > about picking out even pragmatically the > the > > five > > > cows that made the earlier sentence true > > means > > > that they have already been introduced into > > the > > > context and I am unclear how that is done > if > > not > > > by reference: > > > > Because you don't need to pick anything to > > claim that > > five do something. The claim is meaningful > > without > > any reference going on. > > I don't quite see how but then I am now > perfectly > sure that I don't understand your use of > "refer." > I wonder if there is some other terminology we > could use that would make my point and > eventually > make your point clear. > > > > they are the values of the > > > variables (if you insist that there are > > variables > > > in this case) in the first reference as > they > > are > > > the values of {lo mu lo bakni} in the > second > > > > The variables take _all_ the values of their > > range, > > not just those values that make the sentence > > true. > > We are not talking about the range but the > values here. It is the values that are alluded > to in a quantified statement, they are what makes the sentence true (damned button, whatever one it is!) > > > As I said somehwere earlier, we are > > constructing > > > the model as we go here and so what we > bring > > with > > > sumti of any sort go into the model as the > > > reality end of the reference function. > > > > Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does refer. > > Possibly > > and probably to more than five cows. All of > > those > > referents (not just the five that make the > > sentence true) > > do go into the model.

Hey two things we agree on, but this seems inconsistent with what you have said elsewhere which appear to say that {mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} quantifies over cows, not just over lo bakni.

> > > If I can > > > tell that there are five, I can tell which > > ones > > > they are in a sufficient way — though > maybe > > in > > > only a rather a rather vague. I can, > > however, > > > know whether it is the same five involved > at > > the > > > next stage. > > > > When you want to do reference, you can.

I already did in some standard sense of "reference." Yours may be a standard sense as well but I don't know it nor how it goes.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 1912

> > > Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does refer. > > > Possibly > > > and probably to more than five cows. All of > > > those > > > referents (not just the five that make the > > > sentence true) > > > do go into the model. > > Hey two things we agree on, but this seems > inconsistent with what you have said elsewhere > which appear to say that {mu lo bakni} = {mu > bakni} quantifies over cows, not just over lo > bakni.

{mu bakni} does quantify over cows, and cows is perecisely what {lo bakni} refers to, so they are the same thing. {lo bakni} refers to the cows in the model, as you put it, and both {mu bakni} and {mu lo bakni} quantify over the cows in the model.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > > Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does > refer. > > > > Possibly > > > > and probably to more than five cows. All > of > > > > those > > > > referents (not just the five that make > the > > > > sentence true) > > > > do go into the model. > > > > Hey two things we agree on, but this seems > > inconsistent with what you have said > elsewhere > > which appear to say that {mu lo bakni} = {mu > > bakni} quantifies over cows, not just over lo > > bakni. > > {mu bakni} does quantify over cows, and cows is > perecisely > what {lo bakni} refers to, so they are the same > thing. > {lo bakni} refers to the cows in the model, as > you put it, > and both {mu bakni} and {mu lo bakni} quantify > over > the cows in the model.

While I suspect you of being deliberately obfuscatory, I'll concede that I was not as precise as apparently I needed to be, assuming that some things were in our common (assumed cooperative) context. So, what I meant was "You say here that the quantifier in {mu lo bakni}has {lo bakni} as its range but other places it appears that {mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} has the whole of existing cows as its range. Which is correct?"

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 1912

> So, what I meant was > "You say here that the quantifier in {mu lo > bakni}has {lo bakni} as its range but other > places it appears that {mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} > has the whole of existing cows as its range. > Which is correct?"

{mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} has {lo bakni} as its range, i.e. the whole of cows in the model.

"Existing cows", as in the cows that exist (or ever existed or ever will exist?) in the real world is one particular model that does not always apply. It will apply in some contexts.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > So, what I meant was > > "You say here that the quantifier in {mu lo > > bakni}has {lo bakni} as its range but other > > places it appears that {mu lo bakni} = {mu > bakni} > > has the whole of existing cows as its range. > > Which is correct?" > > {mu lo bakni} = {mu bakni} has {lo bakni} as > its range, > i.e. the whole of cows in the model. > > "Existing cows", as in the cows that exist (or > ever existed > or ever will exist?) in the real world is one > particular model > that does not always apply. It will apply in > some contexts.

"in the model" still puzzles me. All the cows that .... what? I am thinking about?, are near enough to be of interest? and so on. I would have thought (because that is the way it has been) that {lo bakni} was always a selection from available cows, that is that the range on a quantifier might well be greater than {lo bakni} (unless it was lo ro bakni), though it would generally be less than all the cows that are, were or ever will be (usually just all that there are now or even, as noted, all that are currently available, not all of which need be in lo bakni).

On a not unrelated issue. Two occurrences of {mu bakni} can indicate two different bunches of cows; can two occurrences of {lo bakni} (in the same context, etc.) indicate two different bunches of cows or must they be the same? Gneralizinf various other things it sems that a good case could be made either way.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:32 GMT posts: 1912

> "in the model" still puzzles me.

You introduced the term, not me. I was using "universe of discourse".

> All the cows > that .... what? I am thinking about?, are near > enough to be of interest? and so on.

Right. All the ones we are talking about. All the ones that are part of the discourse.

> On a not unrelated issue. Two occurrences of {mu > bakni} can indicate two different bunches of > cows;

While the universe of discourse does not change, each occurrence says that out of the (same) available cows, five do something or other. It need not be the same five each time.

> can two occurrences of {lo bakni} (in the > same context, etc.) indicate two different > bunches of cows or must they be the same?

As long as the model doesn't change, they are the same, but the model can change very quckly. As you said, the model is being constructed and modified as discourse progresses. There are ways (such as assignable pronouns) to ensure more durable reference.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > "in the model" still puzzles me. > > You introduced the term, not me. I was using > "universe of discourse".

OK, that translation helps. It's not quite what I meant but we are getting to the same page.

> > All the cows > > that .... what? I am thinking about?, are > near > > enough to be of interest? and so on. > > Right. All the ones we are talking about. All > the > ones that are part of the discourse.

{lo bakni} is all of these? At any given moment at least? I suppose that will work if the whole can change constantly. My universe of discourse is relatively stable but what parts of it are taken out to be referred to grows as the model develops. Thus using, say, {lo drata bakni} after {lo bakni} would not add to the universe of discourse but would add to what is used in the model.

> > On a not unrelated issue. Two occurrences of > {mu > > bakni} can indicate two different bunches of > > cows; > > While the universe of discourse does not > change, each > occurrence says that out of the (same) > available > cows, five do something or other. It need not > be the same > five each time.

That is, another bunch might get taken up in the model. OK

> > can two occurrences of {lo bakni} (in the > > same context, etc.) indicate two different > > bunches of cows or must they be the same? > > As long as the model doesn't change, they are > the same, > but the model can change very quckly. As you > said, the > model is being constructed and modified as > discourse > progresses. There are ways (such as assignable > pronouns) > to ensure more durable reference.

This one is harder to see. You mean, I suppose either that the universe of discourse can expand or that the parts taken up in the model can expand. The latter is clearly true, the former seems to equate the universe of discourse with the things taken up in the model, which is fine except for the metaphysical question of where they came from. Then, of course, if {lo bakni} is all the cows in the universe of discourse = all those playing the role of a value in the model, it will change if some new cows come in, lo drata bakni, say (this generates a paradox of a sort, requiring that we go back and change the model we were developing, but realistically this sort of thing happens — just not obviously in this case.)

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 1912

> How do I get assurance? I can't use a pronoun > since it only works if the reference is the same, > but I have no reference yet.

How do you ever get assurance that your first reference to something gets what you want?

If you say {mu bakni cu blabi} and then you want to refer to the five cows that are white, you can use {lo mu bakni poi blabi}. Or {lo mu bakni poi go'i} if the first bridi was longer and you don't want to repeat it. In other words, to refer to the things that satisfy a certain sentence you use "the things that satisfy such sentence".

> I don't quite understand what > "bridi operator" means here that keeps it from > making referring expressions.

By bridi operator I meant an operator that takes a bridi as an argument and returns a bridi. A function from bridi to bridi.

> After all, the > descriptor (even if you don't think it is a > quantifer) is a bridi operator in the normal > sense of the phrase and you hold it creates a > referring expression.

A gadri is a function from bridi to sumti, yes.

> Is it the difference > between a (to put this in Lojban terms) > bridi-forming operator and a sumti-forming > operator?

Right.

> If that is the case, then I will accept > that it is the whole bridi which makes the > reference, not just the term (though I don't > really believe this).

I don't have a problem with that. But then you need to turn that bridi into a sumti in order to use it as a reference, and that's what gadri do.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote:

> > By bridi operator I meant an operator that > takes > a bridi as an argument and returns a bridi. A > function > from bridi to bridi. > > > After all, the > > descriptor (even if you don't think it is a > > quantifer) is a bridi operator in the normal > > sense of the phrase and you hold it creates a > > referring expression. > > A gadri is a function from bridi to sumti, yes. > > > Is it the difference > > between a (to put this in Lojban terms) > > bridi-forming operator and a sumti-forming > > operator? > > Right. > > > If that is the case, then I will accept > > that it is the whole bridi which makes the > > reference, not just the term (though I don't > > really believe this). > > I don't have a problem with that. But then you > need to turn that bridi into a sumti in order > to > use it as a reference, and that's what gadri > do. > Puzzlement. I thought you just agreed that the sentence as a whole makes the reference. What more can using a gadri do?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 1912

> > > If that is the case, then I will accept > > > that it is the whole bridi which makes the > > > reference, not just the term (though I don't > > > really believe this). > > > > I don't have a problem with that. But then you > > need to turn that bridi into a sumti in order > > to > > use it as a reference, and that's what gadri > > do. > > > Puzzlement. I thought you just agreed that the > sentence as a whole makes the reference. What > more can using a gadri do?

It allows you to use the reference to make a claim about its referents.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > > If that is the case, then I will accept > > > > that it is the whole bridi which makes > the > > > > reference, not just the term (though I > don't > > > > really believe this). > > > > > > I don't have a problem with that. But then > you > > > need to turn that bridi into a sumti in > order > > > to > > > use it as a reference, and that's what > gadri > > > do. > > > > > Puzzlement. I thought you just agreed that > the > > sentence as a whole makes the reference. > What > > more can using a gadri do? > > It allows you to use the reference to make a > claim about > its referents.

But I have already done that in the first place; even though it is the whole sentence which makes the reference it does also make a claim about that referent.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 1912

> > What > > > more can using a gadri do? > > > > It allows you to use the reference to make a > > claim about > > its referents. > > But I have already done that in the first place; > even though it is the whole sentence which makes > the reference it does also make a claim about > that referent.

Consider these three cases:

(1) Exactly three cows are white. (2) At least three cows are white. (3) At most three cows are white.

With (1), I suppose you could argue that you made a reference to all the cows that are white, and claimed about them that they are white. I would not say that, I would say that all one does is say how many white cows there are without referring to the white cows.

With (2), the presumed referents are more doubtful. Are they all the white cows, or any group of at least three white cows? I would say that all one does with (2) is say how many white cows there are without referring to the white cows.

With (3), we are not even sure that there are any white cows, so talking of reference is even more iffy. I would say that (3) just says how many white cows there are without referring to the white cows.

True references to the white cows would be "the exactly three cows that are white", "the at least three cows that are white" and "the at most three cows that are white". In lojban:

lo ci bakni (poi blabi) lo su'o ci bakni (poi blabi) lo su'e ci bakni (poi blabi)


PA bakni cu blabi

says that the number of cows that are white is PA. It does not refer to PA cows and say of those that they are white. The latter is meaningless for some PA, and iffy for others.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:33 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > What > > > > more can using a gadri do? > > > > > > It allows you to use the reference to make > a > > > claim about > > > its referents. > > > > But I have already done that in the first > place; > > even though it is the whole sentence which > makes > > the reference it does also make a claim about > > that referent. > > Consider these three cases: > > (1) Exactly three cows are white. > (2) At least three cows are white. > (3) At most three cows are white. > > With (1), I suppose you could argue that you > made a reference > to all the cows that are white, and claimed > about them that > they are white. I would not say that, I would > say that all > one does is say how many white cows there are > without referring > to the white cows.

I would, of course, like to submit here that what I am talking about is {ci (lo) bakni cu blabi} or some such so it is not "exactly three" in the sense that none other are, but just "three" — as you pointed out before. This does not make a lot of difference but I try to keep the cases clear in case it does. > With (2), the presumed referents are more > doubtful. Are they > all the white cows, or any group of at least > three white cows? > I would say that all one does with (2) is say > how many white > cows there are without referring to the white > cows. > > With (3), we are not even sure that there are > any white cows, > so talking of reference is even more iffy. I > would say that > (3) just says how many white cows there are > without referring > to the white cows.

The referring in each case is through the particular quantifier (as it were), which is all of these, though admittedly buried in very different ways. All that the last case says is that what is referred to may not be white. the second says that we don't know how many are in the group referred to — often the case even with definite descriptions.


> True references to the white cows would be "the > exactly three > cows that are white", "the at least three cows > that are white" > and "the at most three cows that are white". In > lojban: > > lo ci bakni (poi blabi) > lo su'o ci bakni (poi blabi) > lo su'e ci bakni (poi blabi)

These have some of the same problems as the cases above — we don't know how many are involved in the lastt two cases and in the last case the fact that there may be none with the resultant problems about claims that, taken grammatically, are true but referentially false (Oh, I suppose you are going to allow nonreferring sumti to participate in true atomic sentences, but causes a different set of problems, which I don't know how you would deal with).

> PA bakni cu blabi > > says that the number of cows that are white is > PA. It does > not refer to PA cows and say of those that they > are white. > The latter is meaningless for some PA, and iffy > for others.

Well, it is not exactly meaningless when PA = {no}, it is just that its meaning does not flow out in the usual pattern, which pattern says exactly that reference does not occur in this case. Otherwise they all get treated the same way (with some tranlation work required for proportional and relative quantifiers).

As McKay points out, descriptions are just quantifiers (and, I suppose, conversely). That is, a description is a function from a sentence-matrix to a sentence as much as a quantifier is. (This was always one of the hardest pieces of Montague grammar to get one's head around but it is very old in logic -- singular propositions are on a par with universals and particulars, just different functions).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan., 2005 02:40 GMT posts: 1912

> How about: > > In some discussions, saying "mi kalte pa lo pavyseljirna" (which > litterally means "there exists one thing that is a unicorn that > I am hunting"; this implies that at least one unicorn exists) is > perfectly reasonable,

That's good.

> > For me, the most helpful concept in that article is the idea of > > plural terms: terms that refer to several things without having to > > create a new entity that comprises them (a "group" or "mass"). > > Do we use that at all?

Yes: lo/le/la are all plural referers.

> > > "lo cribe" could be one, or a billion, or none (although expect > > > listener hostility!!), > > > > What do you have in mind by saying that it can be none? > > "I need a doctor".

That cannot mean that I need no doctor, though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

Posted by xod on Sun 30 of May, 2004 21:05 GMT posts: 143

Not a bad proposal at all. However, usage of lo'e will break in fascinating ways. Currently people use lo'e for "the typical", and they make statements which should in fact be applicable with "ro" (if definitional) or with "su'o" (if observational). With intensionality, the sentence holds true even if the intensional items don't even exist. Most uses of lo'e don't meet that standard at all — if there are no lions, the typical one is not in Africa.

mu'o mi'e xod

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sun 30 of May, 2004 21:14 GMT posts: 1912

"lo is defined to be the unspecified article. When used, it could be intensional or extensional, specific or general. Its default quantifiers are unspecified."

Is this in any way different from XS lo? If you think it is, I would like to see a sentence that means one thing with XS-lo and a different thing with RXS-lo.

The thing I have doubts about is "Its default quantifiers are unspecified." Does that mean that the sentence with lo will always have a quantifier, but you have to glork what it is? If that's the case, then there's a difference from XS-lo, which simply does not have a quantifier. Not having a quantifier means for example that {lo broda na brode} is always equivalent to {naku lo broda cu brode}: "brodas don't brode" = "it is not the case that brodas brode", which obviously fails if lo has a hidden quantifier that you have to glork.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 30 of May, 2004 22:56 GMT

I wrote: > Not having a quantifier means > for example that {lo broda na brode} is always equivalent to > {naku lo broda cu brode}: "brodas don't brode" = "it is not the > case that brodas brode", which obviously fails if lo has a hidden > quantifier that you have to glork.

The first should have been {lo broda naku brode}.

(I think {na} should only have scope to its right, but it is defined as having scope over the whole bridi. In the case of lo without quantifier that doesn't matter.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 00:30 GMT

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:05:14PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: RXS: Rob's version of XS > Not a bad proposal at all. However, usage of lo'e will break in > fascinating ways. Currently people use lo'e for "the typical", and > they make statements which should in fact be applicable with "ro" (if > definitional) or with "su'o" (if observational). With intensionality, > the sentence holds true even if the intensional items don't even > exist. Most uses of lo'e don't meet that standard at all — if there > are no lions, the typical one is not in Africa.

As I've said to you offline, Rob, you should probably re-read the book' definition of lo'e; it does not resemble yours at all.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT

I'll get to RXS itself later; this is just cleaning up my inbox. 1. An arguable point: can't we talk about a typical unicorn even if there aren't any unicorns? Or maybe that is just stereotypical.

2. the conditions on intensional cases is the same as on extensional, it is just that the relevant world is different (no longer this one). wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: Re: RXS: Rob's version of XS Not a bad proposal at all. However, usage of lo'e will break in fascinating ways. Currently people use lo'e for "the typical", and they make statements which should in fact be applicable with "ro" (if definitional) or with "su'o" (if observational). 2.With intensionality, the sentence holds true even if the intensional items don't even exist. 1.Most uses of lo'e don't meet that standard at all — if there are no lions, the typical one is not in Africa.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 31 of May, 2004 19:12 GMT

1. I still don't understand what the sense of "intensional" is in which there can be an intensional gadri: I know about intensional contexts and intesional objects and intensional definitions, but this one escapes me. Also, {lo} is by every definition I know of inspecific — do you mean particular? And I think the best thing to say about the generic {lo} — which I gather is what is being shor for here — is that quantifiers are irrelevant to it — it ranges betwen none and all but at no requir4ed place in there (and mere numbers as opposed to weights don't seettle cases anyhow).

2. This negation transparency holds in general, but is logically shakey because, while numbers do not strictly matter, they are really there behind it all. However, I would not feel at all uncomfortable (I think the odds are very low of problems) because of the vagueness of the claim from a numeric point of view. wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: Re: RXS: Rob's version of XS

1."lo is defined to be the unspecified article. When used, it could be intensional or extensional, specific or general. Its default quantifiers are unspecified."

Is this in any way different from XS lo? If you think it is, I would like to see a sentence that means one thing with XS-lo and a different thing with RXS-lo.

The thing I have doubts about is "Its default quantifiers are unspecified." Does that mean that the sentence with lo will always have a quantifier, but you have to glork what it is? If that's the case, then there's a difference fom XS-lo, which 2.simply does not have a quantifier. Not having a quantifier means for example that {lo broda na brode} is always equivalent to {naku lo broda cu brode}: "brodas don't brode" = "it is not the case that brodas brode", which obviously fails if lo has a hidden quantifier that you have to glork.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

John E Clifford wrote:

>I'll get to RXS itself later; this is just cleaning up my inbox. >1. An arguable point: can't we talk about a typical unicorn even if there aren't any unicorns? Or maybe that is just stereotypical. > >2. the conditions on intensional cases is the same as on extensional, it is just that the relevant world is different (no longer this one). > >

Consider the case of fearing something which doesn't actually exist.


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. OK. What is the probolem here. There is nothing in the external world thatI fear. But surely there is something in the world of my beliefs or imagination or wherever it s that the objects of fear reside. Otherwise by what right is it that we say I fear something? xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote:

>I'll get to RXS itself later; this is just cleaning up my inbox. >1. An arguable point: can't we talk about a typical unicorn even if there aren't any unicorns? Or maybe that is just stereotypical. > >2. the conditions on intensional cases is the same as on extensional, it is just that the relevant world is different (no longer this one). > >

1.Consider the case of fearing something which doesn't actually exist.


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

It's possible to fear something which no longer exists or which never existed. The fear is real and in this world regardless of the reality of the feared. That's about all I have to report about the fact that existence is not a factor in intensional references, while it is for extensions and typicals.


John E Clifford wrote:

>1. OK. What is the probolem here. There is nothing in the external world thatI fear. But surely there is something in the world of my beliefs or imagination or wherever it s that the objects of fear reside. Otherwise by what right is it that we say I fear something? >xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote: > > > >>I'll get to RXS itself later; this is just cleaning up my inbox. >>1. An arguable point: can't we talk about a typical unicorn even if there aren't any unicorns? Or maybe that is just stereotypical. >> >>2. the conditions on intensional cases is the same as on extensional, it is just that the relevant world is different (no longer this one). >> >> >> >> > >1.Consider the case of fearing something which doesn't actually exist. > > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:11 GMT

1. Right. But if I fear unicorns, the unicorns in my mental world which are the object of my fear are under the same rules — in that mental world — as the cows I kick are in this external world. Note that the fear is in this world, only its object is in the other (which is why it is useful to mark the points where we pass from one world to the next to find references). xod wrote:1.It's possible to fear something which no longer exists or which never existed. The fear is real and in this world regardless of the reality of the feared. That's about all I have to report about the fact that existence is not a factor in intensional references, while it is for extensions and typicals.


John E Clifford wrote:

>1. OK. What is the probolem here. There is nothing in the external world thatI fear. But surely there is something in the world of my beliefs or imagination or wherever it s that the objects of fear reside. Otherwise by what right is it that we say I fear something? >xod wrote:John E Clifford wrote: > > > >>I'll get to RXS itself later; this is just cleaning up my inbox. >>1. An arguable point: can't we talk about a typical unicorn even if there aren't any unicorns? Or maybe that is just stereotypical. >> >>2. the conditions on intensional cases is the same as on extensional, it is just that the relevant world is different (no longer this one). >> >> >> >> > >1.Consider the case of fearing something which doesn't actually exist. > > > > >


-- Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

la djan terpa cidapo'o i go'i lo bakni e lo pavyseljirna e le gerku pe le dy lamji xabju "John fears only three things: cows, unicorns, and his neighbour's dog."

lo'i se terpa be la djan cu du lo bakni ce lo pavyseljirna ce le gerku pe le dy lamji xabju "The set of all things feared by John is the three-membered-set: {cows, unicorns, his neighbour's dog}"

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 01 of June, 2004 23:15 GMT

Well, in the first I remain uncertain what kind of an event a three somethings is. The second is a puzzle: I am tempted to say that it is a verbal trick, since it cannot be derived from the first (properly presented) and yet it looks so reasonable. It way be yet another argument for something other than {lo} in some places — though it is hard to see what will work. I am inclined to say the first may be true but the second is clearly false. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: la djan terpa cidapo'o i go'i lo bakni e lo pavyseljirna e le gerku pe le dy lamji xabju "John fears only three things: cows, unicorns, and his neighbour's dog."

lo'i se terpa be la djan cu du lo bakni ce lo pavyseljirna ce le gerku pe le dy lamji xabju "The set of all things feared by John is the three-membered-set: {cows, unicorns, his neighbour's dog}"

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/