Lojban In General

Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So, the actor here — and the patient — are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that
bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
Subject: lojban xorlo

Hello everyone.

I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that * Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the
referents of the unquantified term.
I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra

lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu

Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu

meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
Squark

Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So, the actor here — and the patient — are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that
bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
Subject: lojban xorlo

Hello everyone.

I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that * Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the
referents of the unquantified term.
I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra

lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu

Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu

meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
Squark

Then, what is the difference between *lo mu nanmu* and *loi mu nanmu* ?
Actually, what *loi mu nanmu* means in xorlo? A single mass of 5
women/girls, or an unspecified number of masses of women/girls? If the
later, can we say that *lo mu nanmu* = *pa loi mu nanmu* ?

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:23 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of
> it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu'
> refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such
> and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So,
> the actor here — and the patient — are not the individuals, men and women,
> but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the
> conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the
> referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely
> go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least
> one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem
> to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So,
> 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing,
> a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that bunch, can
> also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of
> xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well
> cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).
> ----------
> *From:* Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
> *To:* lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>;
> lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
> *Subject:* lojban xorlo
>
> Hello everyone.
> I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo
> proposal:
>
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
> <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo>
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri
>
> There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have
> that
>
> - Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a *constant*, i.e.
> not a quantified term. This means that it *refers* to one or more
> individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with
> respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change
> the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the
> same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas.
> In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by
> the quantifier *mu*, and it takes its values from the set of all things
> that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term,
> but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a
> quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the
> quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier
> runs over the referents of the unquantified term.
>
> I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance,
> consider the *jufra*
>
> *lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu*
> *
> *
> Under xorlo, *lo mu nanmu* refers to some 5 men/boys and *lo ci ninmu* refers
> to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo,
> the default outer quantifier of *lo* was *su'o *thus the above would
> implied that *at least one* of the men talks to *at least one* of the
> women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in
> the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo
>
> *le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu*
> *
> *
> meant that *all* of the men talk to *all* of the women, since the default
> outer quantifier of *le* was *ro*. What happens under xorlo? Do both
> phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the
> phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest
> interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".
>
> In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man
> and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a
> term cannot be a "constant".
>
> Secondly, what is meant by *lo* becoming "generic"? What is the difference
> from the earlier convention?
>
> Many thx for any help!
>
> Best regards,
> Squark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am not sure what the official answer is to that, but my own preference would be to skip lei/loi/lai altogether for a while. The problems that they present are part of the reason for a renewed le/lo/la. Older versions of le/lo/la are now quantified cases of the new ones. Or so it seems to me, as it seems the rational way to do things (so far — what happens with lo after that is another matter).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 2:06:30 AM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

Then, what is the difference between lo mu nanmu and loi mu nanmu ? Actually, what loi mu nanmu means in xorlo? A single mass of 5 women/girls, or an unspecified number of masses of women/girls? If the later, can we say that lo mu nanmu = pa loi mu nanmu ?

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:23 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So, the actor here — and the patient — are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in
> this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).
>
>

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
>To: lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
>Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
>Subject: lojban xorlo
>
>
>
>Hello everyone.
>
>
>I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:
>
>
>http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
>http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri
>
>
>>There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that * Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that
> scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the referents of the unquantified term.
>I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra
>
>
>lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu
>
>
>Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo
>
>
>le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu
>
>
>meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".
>
>
>In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".
>
>
>Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?
>
>
>Many thx for any help!
>
>
>Best regards,
> Squark
>
>
>

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man
> and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a
> term cannot be a "constant".

This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Hello everyone.
I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo
proposal:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo>

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have
that

- Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a *constant*, i.e. not
a quantified term. This means that it *refers* to one or more
individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with
respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change
the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the
same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas.
In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by
the quantifier *mu*, and it takes its values from the set of all things
that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term,
but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a
quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the
quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier
runs over the referents of the unquantified term.

I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance,
consider the *jufra*

• lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu*

Under xorlo, *lo mu nanmu* refers to some 5 men/boys and *lo ci ninmu* refers
to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo,
the default outer quantifier of *lo* was *su'o *thus the above would implied
that *at least one* of the men talks to *at least one* of the women. Of
course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the
universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo

• le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu*

meant that *all* of the men talk to *all* of the women, since the default
outer quantifier of *le* was *ro*. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases
mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases
could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest
interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man
and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a
term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by *lo* becoming "generic"? What is the difference
from the earlier convention?

Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
Squark

Well, I don't agree with all of xorlo (and I don't even understand parts of it) but this case is a part I do understand and agree with. 'lo mu nanmu' refers to some bunch of five guys and says that they collectively acted such and such: here, talked to the bunch of three women also collectively. So, the actor here — and the patient — are not the individuals, men and women, but the bunches as wholes. The individuals *participate in the conversation, but that participation may be no more than being part of the referents of 'we' and 'you'. What external quantification does is precisely go down to the individual level: 'su'o lo mu nanmu' would mean that at least one of the men talked and (in this case but not generally) that would seem to be a minimal condition for the bunch to talk to the bunch of women. So, 'lo mu nanmu' is a constant (for a given context) as it refers to one thing, a bunchof five men. That these five men which are parts of that
bunch, can also act in similar ways does make the bunch a single thing. (This part of xorlo is a major achievement, cutting though a mess of problems never well cared for in Loglan nor earlier Lojban).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; lojban-list@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:25:16 PM
Subject: lojban xorlo

Hello everyone.

I have recently got acquainted with the (virtually accepted, AFAIK) xorlo proposal:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+gadri

There are several things I don't understand about it. Foremost, we now have that * Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. In {mu da poi broda zo'u da brode}, "da" is a quantified variable, bound by the quantifier mu, and it takes its values from the set of all things that broda. (Within the scope of the quantifier, it acts as a constant term, but it cannot escape as a constant out of that scope.) Any term with a quantifier in front takes values from the set of things over which the quantifier runs. When an unquantified term is quantified, the quantifier runs over the
referents of the unquantified term.

I don't quite understand how can all such terms be constants. For instance, consider the jufra

lo mu nanmu cu tavla lo ci ninmu

Under xorlo, lo mu nanmu refers to some 5 men/boys and lo ci ninmu refers to some 3 women/girls. However, which men speak to which men? Before xorlo, the default outer quantifier of lo was su'o thus the above would implied that at least one of the men talks to at least one of the women. Of course, before xorlo that would also mean that only 5 men exist in the universe and only 3 women. Similarly, before xorlo

le mu nanmu cu tavla le ci ninmu

meant that all of the men talk to all of the women, since the default outer quantifier of le was ro. What happens under xorlo? Do both phrases mean "all"? "at least one"? Or is it context defendant, and the phrases could mean anything? The later possibility suggests that the weakest interpretation is safest, namely the interpretation with "at least one".

In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a term cannot be a "constant".

Secondly, what is meant by lo becoming "generic"? What is the difference from the earlier convention?

Many thx for any help!

Best regards,
Squark

s/brevi/bevri/

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 2:26:03 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

Oops, I forgot cu in all of my examples. I fixed them below.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:

Btw, what happened to lo'e and le'e ? They are not mentioned in the pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?
>
>
>Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a shot at guessing how it should work.
>
>
>Lets start with lo . The syntax is
>
>
>optional outer quantifier lo optional inner quantifier broda
>
>
>lo broda means "at least one mass of broda". For example, lo nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "at least one group of men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is unknown, in particular it can consist of a single object in which case it is in fact an individual. Also, for continuous things like mudri or rokci the size might be meaningless i.e. not representable as a natural number.
>
>
>lo n broda where n is a quantifier means "at least one mass of broda out of a mass of n broda". Supposedly, the later mass of n broda is not just a random collection of broda but a group unified by something. For example, lo mu nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "at least one group of men out of a group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is still unknown, but it can be at most n.
>
>
>m lo broda where m is a quantifier means "m individual broda". For example, su'o ci lo nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or group of men does this".
>
>
>m lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda out of a mass of n broda". For example, ci le mu nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or group of men within that group of 5 men does this".
>
>
>loi : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional outer quantifier loi optional inner quantifier broda
>
>
>loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n broda .
>
>
>m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>>Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" means between the groups, not within them.
>
>
>m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out of a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men within that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>
>
>Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu brevi le pipno means the same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men together consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 = 20 men.
>
>
>lo'i : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional outer quantifier lo'i optional inner quantifier broda
>
>
>lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda"
>
>
>lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda"
>
>
>m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda"
>
>
>m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda"
>
>
>Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the sets involved.
>
>
>le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner quantifier specifies the size of this set.
>la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name.
>
>
>It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in xorlo.
>
>
>2009/9/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>
>
>On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man
>>>>> and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a
>>>>> term cannot be a "constant".
>>
>>This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
>>
>>>>mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>
>>
>>>>To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>>>with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>>>>you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>
>>
>

Oops, I forgot *cu* in all of my examples. I fixed them below.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> Btw, what happened to *lo'e* and *le'e* ? They are not mentioned in the
> pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?
> Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a shot
> at guessing how it should work.
>
> Lets start with *lo* . The syntax is
>
> optional outer quantifier *lo* optional inner quantifier *broda*
> *
> *
> *lo broda means "at least one mass of broda". For example, lo nanmu cu brevi
> le pipno means "at least one group of men carries the piano(s)". The size
> of the mass is unknown, in particular it can consist of a single object in
> which case it is in fact an individual. Also, for continuous things like
> mudri or rokci the size might be meaningless i.e. not representable as a
> natural number.*
>
> *lo* *n* *broda* where *n* is a quantifier means "at least one mass of *
> broda* out of a mass of *n* *broda".* Supposedly, the later mass of *n* *
> broda* is not just a random collection of *broda* but a group unified by
> something. For example, *lo mu nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "at least one
> group of men out of a group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of the
> mass is still unknown, but it can be at most n.*
>
> *m* *lo broda* where *m* is a quantifier means "*m *individual *broda*".
> For example, *su'o ci lo nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 men carry the
> piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or
> groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu brevi le
> pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or
> group of men does this".*
>
> *m* *lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda* out
> of a mass of *n **broda*". For example, *ci le mu nanmu cu brevi le pipno means
> "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no
> other man or group of men within that group of 5 men does this".*
>
> *loi* : The syntax is optional outer quantifier *pi* optional
> fractional outer quantifier *loi* optional inner quantifier *broda*
> *
> *
> * loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n broda
> .
>
> m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For
> example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3 groups of men carry
> the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do
> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3
> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men does
> this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the
> masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be
> meaningless for continuous entities.
> Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means
> "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" means
> between the groups, not within them.
>
> m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out of
> a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu brevi le pipno means
> "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the
> piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do
> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu brevi le pipno means "3
> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men within
> that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In
> particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect
> individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>
> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses
> involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu brevi le pipno means the
> same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men together
> consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 = 20 men.
>
> lo'i : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional
> outer quantifier lo'i optional inner quantifier broda
>
> lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda"
>
> lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda"
>
> m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda"
>
> m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda"
>
> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the sets
> involved.
>
> le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider
> all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner quantifier
> specifies the size of this set.
> la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named
> broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name.
>
> It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which are
> mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in xorlo.
> *
>
> 2009/9/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1
>> man
>> > and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such
>> a
>> > term cannot be a "constant".
>>
>> This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
>>
>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
>> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>
>>
>

Oooops! Fixed it in the quotation below.
Another remark: since in xorlo there are no default quantifiers, *ci lo
nanmu cu bevri le pipno* probably means not that "in the entire universe,
exactly 3 men carry the piano(s)", but that "exactly 3 men carry the piano
out of some implicit mass of men". The former meaning would be conveyed by *ci
lo ro nanmu cu bevri le pipno* .

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Lindar Greenwood

<lindarthebard@yahoo.com>wrote:

> s/brevi/bevri/
>
> ----------
> *From:* Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 6, 2009 2:26:03 PM
> *Subject:* lojban Re: xorlo
>
> Oops, I forgot *cu* in all of my examples. I fixed them below.
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Btw, what happened to *lo'e* and *le'e* ? They are not mentioned in the
>> pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?
>> Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a shot
>> at guessing how it should work.
>>
>> Lets start with *lo* . The syntax is
>>
>> optional outer quantifier *lo* optional inner quantifier *broda*
>> *
>> *
>> *lo broda means "at least one mass of broda". For example, lo nanmu cu bevri
>> le pipno means "at least one group of men carries the piano(s)". The size
>> of the mass is unknown, in particular it can consist of a single object in
>> which case it is in fact an individual. Also, for continuous things like
>> mudri or rokci the size might be meaningless i.e. not representable as a
>> natural number.*
>>
>> *lo* *n* *broda* where *n* is a quantifier means "at least one mass of *
>> broda* out of a mass of *n* *broda".* Supposedly, the later mass of *n* *
>> broda* is not just a random collection of *broda* but a group unified by
>> something. For example, *lo mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least
>> one group of men out of a group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of
>> the mass is still unknown, but it can be at most n.*
>>
>> *m* *lo broda* where *m* is a quantifier means "*m *individual *broda*".
>> For example, *su'o ci lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men carry the
>> piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or
>> groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu bevri le
>> pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or
>> group of men does this".*
>>
>> *m* *lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda* out
>> of a mass of *n **broda*". For example, *ci le mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>> "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no
>> other man or group of men within that group of 5 men does this".*
>>
>> *loi* : The syntax is optional outer quantifier *pi* optional
>> fractional outer quantifier *loi* optional inner quantifier *broda*
>> *
>> *
>> * loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n broda
>> .
>>
>> m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For
>> example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men carry
>> the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do
>> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3
>> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men does
>> this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the
>> masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be
>> meaningless for continuous entities.
>> Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means
>> "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" means
>> between the groups, not within them.
>>
>> m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out
>> of a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>> "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the
>> piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do
>> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3
>> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men within
>> that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In
>> particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect
>> individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>>
>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses
>> involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>> the same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men
>> together consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 = 20 men.
>>
>> lo'i : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional
>> outer quantifier lo'i optional inner quantifier broda
>>
>> lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda"
>>
>> lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda"
>>
>> m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda"
>>
>> m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda"
>>
>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the sets
>> involved.
>>
>> le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider
>> all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner quantifier
>> specifies the size of this set.
>> la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named
>> broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name.
>>
>> It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which
>> are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in
>> xorlo.
>> *
>>
>> 2009/9/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1
>>> man
>>> > and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and
>>> such a
>>> > term cannot be a "constant".
>>>
>>> This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
>>>
>>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
>>> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or
>>> if
>>> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

>
>On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Btw, what happened to lo'e and le'e ? They are not mentioned in the pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?
>>
>>
>>Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a shot at guessing how it should work.
>>Hey, we did the best we could. What problems remain. (Looking below, I see you haven't yet really taken account of what we said.)
>>
>>Lets start with lo . The syntax is
>>
>>
>>optional outer quantifier lo optional inner quantifier broda
>>
>>
>>lo broda means "at least one mass of broda". For example, lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is unknown, in particular it can consist of a single object in which case it is in fact an individual. Also, for continuous things like mudri or rokci the size might be meaningless i.e. not representable as a natural number
>>I think the word "mass" is a bad choice here, as it brings to mind things like water, which can, indeed, be handled by this technique but are better treated in other ways. And the "at least one" doesn't work either, lois just like le except for being veridical, so "the group of actual brodas I have in mind" is better (except that "group" has a mathematical sound inappropriate here (I use "bunch" and even that bugs xorxes, who wants no hint of an entity between the brodas and their expression, so just "(Some) brodas").
>>
>>lo n broda where n is a quantifier means "at least one mass of broda out of a mass of n broda". Supposedly, the later mass of n broda is not just a random collection of broda but a group unified by something. For example, lo mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of men out of a group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is still unknown, but it can be at most n
>>No, the group (bunch) has 5 members (x: "Five men" that I have in mind and who will be considered together in what follows)
>>
>>
>>
>>m lo broda where m is a quantifier means "m individual broda". For example, su'o ci lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or group of men does this".
>>Note, importantly, that the three (or at least three) men are from a bunch which will be treated together, not just any old men. Also, fractional quantification makes some sense here, again as pulling out a number of brodas, the number being specified as a fraction of the whole.This section, combined with what follows reminds me that I have forgotten how to talk about several bunches. I remember it as clever, but not the actual technique.
>>
>>
>>m lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda out of a mass of n broda". For example, ci le mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man or group of men within that group of 5 men does this".
>>I'm not sure about the "and no other group within that group" but basically, this looks right. Note the joy of lo ci lo mu nanmu where we get back to "three men out of our bunch of five, acting together...."
>>
>>loi : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional outer quantifier loi optional inner quantifier broda
>>
>>
>>loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n broda .
>>I think this is definitely wrong; masses are different from bunches (although, in Lojban at least, masses can be treated as special kinds of bunches). I think we are now at the blender cases, at least for things like humans. At the very least, the "members" of loi broda are not guaranteed recoverable in their original form: a fifth of loi mu nanmu need not be a nanmu, only becomposed entirely of nanmu bits.
>>
>>m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>>>>Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" means between the groups, not within them.
>>I'm not sure I followed all this but I think it is more or less right; certainly, pulling individuals out of a mass cannot be the job of a whole-number quantifier. And I think your examples make more sense with lo.
>>m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out of a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men within that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>>No, I think — based on the above — that it means m masses of n brodas, drawn from all the brodas.
>> Alternatively, it might be a mass of m brodas drawn from the mass of n.
>>
>>Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means the same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men together consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 = 20 men.
>>I don't know whether your are portioning out a mass by weight or volume or some other metrical way, but this just says you're talking about 0.4 of it.
>>lo'i : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional outer quantifier lo'i optional inner quantifier broda
>>
>>
>>lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda" Ithinkthat lo'i is as specific (or is it definite?) asloitself, i.e., this means "the set of broda I have in mind."
>>
>>lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda"
>>It just says =the set has n members.
>>
>>m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda"
>>I just don't think so; at best it means an m-membered subset of the original set, and I am not sure it doesn't get us back to the members directly.
>>
>>m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda"
>>Ditto
>>
>>Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the sets involved.
>>I don't see this one; I would suppose they gave the number of members (in the subset) as a fraction of the original set
>>
>>le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner quantifier specifies the size of this set.
>>la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name.
>>I have tried to think of all this as systematic and it well may not be.
>>
>>It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in xorlo.
>>I don't see the problem here, as witness the example above.
>>
>>2009/9/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than 1 man
>>>>>>> and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and such a
>>>>>>> term cannot be a "constant".
>>>
>>>This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
>>>
>>>>>>mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>>>>>with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>>>>>>you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (I use "bunch" and even that bugs xorxes, who wants no
> hint of an entity between the brodas and their expression, so just "(Some)
> brodas").

Yes, the reason it bugs me is that for me any quantification of "LE
broda" should only be concerned with things that count as broda. Using
words such as mass/group/bunch can be harmless, as long as one is not
tempted by these words to start quantifying over new entities. If we
do quantify over those new things, we are no longer counting brodas
and so I prefer to use a different selbri for that new type of entity,
"lo gunma be lo broda", "lo girzu be lo broda", "lo selcmi be lo
broda", and so on. Using gadri to introduce these new entities just
leads to trouble.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Let's try to translate the sentence "Do you hear a woman/girl talking?" You
are suggesting

• xu do tirna lo nu da poi nanmu cu tavla*

• Is this the only way to say that in xorlo? In pre-xorlo, that would be

• xu do tirna lo nu lo nanmu cu tavla*

Also, what happens when we run out of *da de di* (that is, 3 variables
aren't enough) ?

Hmm, even worse, what's *lo nu ? "*The event?" I'm pretty sure it's supposed
to be "an event", see
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=How%20to%20use%20xorlo So it
appears to be *lo* is unspecific whereas *le* is specific after all...

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Arran <arran4@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally I think you are using le/la/lo too much if this is your
> problem.. Past beginner level I think that the need for le/la/lo should wear
> off, as you start using things like da/de/PA, ect
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Also *lo* is as specific as *le* but veridicial? How is it possible,
>> then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to say "there exists a
>> *broda* such that..." or "all *broda* have the property..."
>>
>
>

On Tuesday 08 September 2009 05:21:47 Squark Rabinovich wrote:
> Let's try to translate the sentence "Do you hear a woman/girl talking?" You
> are suggesting
> *xu do tirna lo nu da poi nanmu cu tavla*
>
> **Is this the only way to say that in xorlo? In pre-xorlo, that would be
>
> *xu do tirna lo nu lo nanmu cu tavla*

I guess you mean "ninmu". "xu do tirna lo nu da poi ninmu cu tavla" means "Is
there a woman that you hear talking?". Xorlo or not, I'd say "xu do tirna lo
nu lo ninmu cu tavla".

The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I need
a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists or
that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor in
mind) that I need.

> Also, what happens when we run out of *da de di* (that is, 3 variables
> aren't enough) ?

daxire etc.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Btw, what happened to *lo'e* and *le'e* ? They are not mentioned in the
>>> pages about xorlo. Were they scrapped?
>>> Anyway, since nobody gave a complete answer about xorlo, I'll take a shot
>>> at guessing how it should work.
>>> Hey, we did the best we could. What problems remain. (Looking below, I
>>> see you haven't yet really taken account of what we said.)
>>> Lets start with *lo* . The syntax is
>>>
>>> optional outer quantifier *lo* optional inner quantifier *broda*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *lo broda means "at least one mass of broda
>>> ". For example, lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of
>>> men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is unknown, in particular it
>>> can consist of a single object in which case it is in fact an individual.
>>> Also, for continuous things like mudri or rokci the size might be
>>> meaningless i.e. not representable as a natural number
>>> I think the word "mass" is a bad choice here, as it brings to mind things
>>> like water, which can, indeed, be handled by this technique but are better
>>> treated in other ways. And the "at least one" doesn't work either, lo*is just like
>>> le except for being veridical, so "the group of actual *brodas I have in
>>> mind" is better (except that "group" has a mathematical sound inappropriate
>>> here (I use "bunch" and even that bugs xorxes, who wants no hint of an
>>> entity between the brodas and their expression, so just "(Some) brodas").
>>> *
>>>
>>
Entity or not, that's a philosophical question of little relevance, from my
point of view. The important things is understanding how to use this thing.
And since we need a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "green
tomato" as far as I'm concerned). So, do I understand correctly that xorlo
splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: "mass" and "bunch". "Mass"
applies to continuous (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to
discrete (countable) things. Also *lo* is as specific as *le* but
veridicial? How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects?
Suppose I want to say "there exists a *broda* such that..." or "all

• broda* have

the property..."
Summing up, *lo broda* is "the bunch of* broda*" ?

• *

> *
>>> *
>>> *lo* *n* *broda* where *n* is a quantifier means "at least one mass of *
>>> broda* out of a mass of *n* *broda".* Supposedly, the later mass of *n*
>>> *broda* is not just a random collection of *broda* but a group unified
>>> by something. For example,
>>> *lo mu nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one group of men out of a
>>> group of 5 men carries the piano(s)". The size of the mass is still unknown,
>>> but it can be at most n
>>> No, the group (bunch) has 5 members (x: "Five men" that I have in mind
>>> and who will be considered together in what follows)*
>>>
>>
So *lo **n* *broda* is "the bunch of *n* *broda"? In particular lo ro broda* is
all of the *broda* in the universe? I suppose that answers my previous
question?

> *m* *lo broda* where *m* is a quantifier means "*m *individual *broda*".
>>> For example, *su'o ci lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 men carry the
>>> piano(s) (individually), and possibly some other individual men and/or
>>> groups of men do this as well". On the other hand ci lo nanmu cu bevri
>>> le pipno means "3 men carry the piano(s) (individually) and no other man
>>> or group of men does this".*
>>> Note, importantly, that the three (or at least three) men are from a
>>> bunch which will be treated together, not just any old men. Also,
>>> fractional quantification makes some sense here, again as pulling out a
>>> number of brodas, the number being specified as a fraction of the whole.This
>>> section, combined with what follows reminds me that I have forgotten how to
>>> talk about several bunches. I remember it as clever, but not the actual
>>> technique
>>>
>>
So *m* *lo broda* is *m* individual *broda* taken from a bunch? How do I say
just individual *broda* , without any bunch involved?

> *m* *lo n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m individual broda* out
>>> of a mass of *n **broda*". For example, *ci le mu nanmu cu bevri le
>>> pipno means "3 men out of a group of 5 men carry the piano(s)
>>> (individually) and no other man or group of men within that group of 5
>>> men does this".*
>>> I'm not sure about the "and no other group within that group" but
>>> basically, this looks right. Note the joy of lo ci lo mu nanmu where we
>>> get back to "three men out of our bunch of five, acting together...."
>>>
>>
"and no other..." has to be there since it's *ci* rather than *su'o ci* . So
an additional *lo *transforms the individual men back into a bunch?

>
>>> *loi* : The syntax is optional outer quantifier *pi* optional
>>> fractional outer quantifier *loi* optional inner quantifier *broda*
>>> *
>>> *
>>> * loi broda is the same as lo broda . loi n broda is the same as lo n broda
>>> .
>>> I think this is definitely wrong; masses are different from bunches
>>> (although, in Lojban at least, masses can be treated as special kinds of
>>> bunches). I think we are now at the blender cases, at least for things like
>>> humans. At the very least, the "members" of loi broda are not guaranteed
>>> recoverable in their original form: a fifth of loi mu nanmu need not be
>>> a nanmu, only becomposed entirely of nanmu bits.
>>> *
>>>
>>
OK, so what's *loi broda* ? The bunch of masses of *broda* ?

> *
>>> m loi broda where m is a quantifier means "m masses of broda". For
>>> example, su'o ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3 groups of men
>>> carry the piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of
>>> men do this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>>> "3 groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men does
>>> this". The size of the masses is unknown. In particular any/all of the
>>> masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect individuals. The size might be
>>> meaningless for continuous entities.
>>> Another example is lu'i ci loi nanmu cu simxu lo nu damba which means
>>> "three groups of men fight against each other", where "each other" means
>>> between the groups, not within them.
>>> I'm not sure I followed all this but I think it is more or less right;
>>> certainly, pulling individuals out of a mass cannot be the job of a
>>> whole-number quantifier. And I think your examples make more sense with
>>> lo.
>>> *
>>>
>>
Perhaps *m* *loi broda* means "*m* masses of *broda* taken out of the bunch
of masses of *broda*". Again, the question is what if we don't want them to
form a bunch initially...

> *m loi n broda where n and m are quantifier means "m masses of broda out
>>> of a mass of n broda". For example, ci loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>>> "3 groups of men which are subgroups of a group of 50 men carry the
>>> piano(s), and possibly some other individual men and/or groups of men do
>>> this as well". On the other hand ci loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "3
>>> groups of men carry the piano(s) and no other man or group of men within
>>> that group of 50 men does this". The size of the masses is unknown. In
>>> particular any/all of the masses can be of size 1 and thus in effect
>>> individuals. The size might be meaningless for continuous entities.
>>> No, I think — based on the above — that it means m masses of n
>>> brodas, drawn from all the brodas.
>>> Alternatively, it might be a mass of m brodas drawn from the mass of n.
>>> *
>>>
>>
Either *m* masses or a mass of *m* *brodas *, it cannot reasonably mean both
things. However, is there such a thing like "a mass of *m* *brodas*" ?
Aren't masses inherently continuous? Perhaps it's *m* masses of brodas drawn
from the bunch of *n* *brodas ?*

> *
>>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the total size of the masses
>>> involved. For example ci pi vo loi mu no nanmu cu bevri le pipno means
>>> the same as above, with the added information that the 3 groups of men
>>> together consist 0.4 of the total group i.e. 50 x 0.4 = 20 men.
>>> I don't know whether your are portioning out a mass by weight or volume
>>> or some other metrical way, but this just says you're talking about 0.4 of
>>> it.
>>> lo'i : The syntax is optional outer quantifier pi optional fractional
>>> outer quantifier lo'i optional inner quantifier broda
>>>
>>> lo'i broda means "at least one mass of sets of broda"
>>> I think that lo'i is as specific (or is it definite?) as lo itself,
>>> i.e., this means "the set of broda I have in mind."
>>> *
>>>
>>
Why "the set" of *brodas *? Shouldn' it be "the bunch of sets of *brodas*" ?

> *
>>> lo'i n broda means "at least one mass of subsets of a set of n broda"
>>> It just says =the set has n members.
>>> *
>>>
>>
But we might have several sets...

> *
>>> m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda"
>>> I just don't think so; at best it means an m-membered subset of the
>>> original set, and I am not sure it doesn't get us back to the members
>>> directly.
>>> m lo'i n broda means "m subsets of a set of n broda"
>>> Ditto
>>> *
>>>
>>
There got to be a way to consider several sets.

> *
>>> Adding a fractional outer quantifier fixes the size of union of the sets
>>> involved.
>>> I don't see this one; I would suppose they gave the number of members (in
>>> the subset) as a fraction of the original set
>>> *
>>>
>>
Ditto

> *le lei le'i work in the same way except that a priori, I don't consider
>>> all broda but a specific set of things-I-call-broda. The inner
>>> quantifier specifies the size of this set.
>>> la lai la'i work in the same way except that they refer to things named
>>> broda . The inner quantifier is merely a part of the name.
>>> I have tried to think of all this as systematic and it well may not be.
>>> It is also an interesting question how sumti-based descriptions (which
>>> are mentioned in the xamoi ckupau of the "reference grammar") work in
>>> xorlo.
>>> *
>>> I don't see the problem here, as witness the example above.
>>> 2009/9/6 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > In other words, since we're doing about 5 men and 3 women rather than
>>>> 1 man
>>>> > and 1 woman, it seems that a quantifier is logically necessary, and
>>>> such a
>>>> > term cannot be a "constant".
>>>>
>>>> This might help understand how a term can have plural reference:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
>>>>
>>>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
>>>> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>>> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or
>>>> if
>>>> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Personally I think you are using le/la/lo too much if this is your problem..
Past beginner level I think that the need for le/la/lo should wear off, as
you start using things like da/de/PA, ect

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> Also *lo* is as specific as *le* but veridicial? How is it possible, then,
> to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to say "there exists a *
> broda* such that..." or "all *broda* have the property..."
>

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Entity or not, that's a philosophical question of little relevance, from my
> point of view. The important things is understanding how to use this thing.

By "this thing" I take it you mean "this word", namely "lo".

> And since we need a name for it might as well be "bunch" (it might be "green
> tomato" as far as I'm concerned).

We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a
gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about
when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is
that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to
bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo
selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or
anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion

> So, do I understand correctly that xorlo
> splits the old notion of "mass" into two notions: "mass" and "bunch".

Everybody seems to understand it a bit differently, but I wouldn't put
it that way. In my understanding, we have:

loi = lo gunma be lo
lei = lo gunma be le
lai = lo gunma be la

So loi/lei/lai are fully reducible to lo/le/la. The problem with the
old notion of "mass" is that there were several notions mixed
together, and there probably still are.

>"Mass"
> applies to continuous (uncountable) things whereas "bunch" applies to
> discrete (countable) things.

That's the notion of "mass" related to "mass nouns", and you are right
that at least some of the time that was part of what "mass" was
supposed to mean in Lojban slang. But it has nothing to do with the
classical "lei ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno", for example. The three men
carrying the piano together are very much countable. This has to do
with collective predication, not with mass nouns.

> Also lo is as specific as le but veridicial?

No, "lo", at least in xorlo, is neither specific nor unspecific. "lo"
just doesn't mark specificity one way or the other.

> How is it possible, then, to refer to unspecific objects? Suppose I want to
> say "there exists a broda such that..." or "all broda have the property..."

Those are quantified expressions, there was no change in them: "su'o
broda cu ..." and "ro broda cu ..." work just as you expect.

> Summing up, lo broda is "the bunch of broda" ?

I don't think "bunch" helps any, in fact it misleads. The closest
English for "lo broda" is "brodas", or perhaps "broda(s)". English
doesn't really have a number-neutral and specificity-neutral
expression like "lo broda". You have to choose between "brodas" or
"the brodas" or "a broda" or "the broda", depending on context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's try to translate the sentence "Do you hear a woman/girl talking?"
...
> In pre-xorlo, that would be
> xu do tirna lo nu lo ninmu cu tavla

That's how I would say it too. Of course it could also mean "do you
hear women talking?" both pre-xorlo and now.

> Hmm, even worse, what's lo nu ? "The event?" I'm pretty sure it's supposed
> to be "an event",

Or "events", or even better just a suitably placed "-ing", since the
word "event" sometimes brings unwanted connotations (a state is rarely
called an "event", but it can be a "nu" for example).

For example: "mi nelci lo nu citka lo cakla" doesn't really translate
well as "I like an event of eating chocolate". "I like events of
eating chocolate" is slightly better, but the best is "I like eating
chocolate".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
> The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I
> need
> a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists
> or
> that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor
> in
> mind) that I need.

This is strange. Then, *lo mikce cu tavla* doesn't mean that a doctor exists
which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?!

2009/9/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a
> gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about
> when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is
> that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to
> bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo
> selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or
> anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion

I fail to see almost any difference between "tables" and "a bunch of
tables". Perhaps the only difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger
implication of something uniting the tables together. In order to remove any
doubts, lets call it a "plurality of tables".

Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as far as xorlo is concerned.
Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe himself?

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> We do have many names for "lo", it is a word, it is a cmavo, it is a
>> gadri, etc, it is not a bunch. The issue of new entities comes about
>> when discussing what "lo jubme" for example refers to. My answer is
>> that it refers to tables, not to bunches or to a bunch. To refer to
>> bunches there are better words, such as "lo gunma", "lo girzu", "lo
>> selcmi", etc. Saying that "lo jubme" is "a bunch of tables", or
>> anything else besides "tables", only invites confusion, in my opinion
>
> I fail to see almost any difference between "tables" and "a bunch of
> tables". Perhaps the only difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger
> implication of something uniting the tables together. In order to remove any
> doubts, lets call it a "plurality of tables".
> Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as far as xorlo is concerned.
> Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe himself?
>
>
Jorge Llambias IS xorxe

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I fail to see almost any difference between "tables" and "a bunch of
> tables".

Consider:

"Tables are often made of wood."
"A bunch of tables is often made of wood."

"He makes tables for a living."
"He makes a bunch of tables for a living."

Do you think those mean the same thing?

In any case, I don't think it's a problem to think that "lo jubme" can
sometimes mean "a bunch o tables", as long as that doesn't lead you to
expect that you can then quantify over bunches of tables to get "every
bunch of tables", "three bunches of tables", and so on. Those are not
the type of things that can be said with "lo jubme".

> Perhaps the only difference is that "bunch" contains a stronger
> implication of something uniting the tables together. In order to remove any
> doubts, lets call it a "plurality of tables".

As long as you don't then want to talk about "three pluralities of
tables", there is no problem. "lo" only lets you quantify over tables.

> Fellows, I'm afraid we are totally lost here, as far as xorlo is concerned.
> Where are the authority people? Where is xorxe himself?

mu'o mi'e _xorxes_

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is strange. Then, lo mikce cu tavla doesn't mean that a doctor exists
> which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?!

It could mean, among other things:

Doctors talk.
The doctors talk.
A doctor talks.
The doctor talks.
Doctors are talking.
The doctors are talking.
...
Doctors talked.
...
Doctors were talking.
...

and many others, some more likely than others depending on the
context. Since definiteness, number, and tense are not explicitly
given, they have to be figured from context. In English you are forced
to give definiteness, number and tense explicitly, in Lojban you can
leave them out. I don't think it says anything about existence though.
(At least no more existence than the existence required in order to
talk, but that comes from "tavla", not from "lo".)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

LOL, so *you* are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended!

OK, let me take another shot at understanding the *gadri* proposal.

• lo broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* , masses of *broda* (or

even sets of *broda* ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of
entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic *
broda* . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is
that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least
one *broda*" but not "exactly one *broda*" or "at most one *broda*". At
least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning
is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one
meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.
For example, *lo nanmu bevri le pipno* can mean anything from "a man carries
the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "*the* man carries the piano(s)".

• lo **n** broda* can mean either "*n* *broda *, divided into masses in the

way (whatever)" (*n* *broda* regarded individually is a special case where
each mass consists of 1 *broda*) or "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* /
masses of *broda* out of the *n* *broda*".

• m* *lo broda *means "*m* individual *broda*". This is way more specific

than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the *m* *broda* out of the
specific *broda*"?

• m* *lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't

like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It doesn't
appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a
person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning
conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are
carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use
le ?*

• loi broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and
• lo broda*

• loi **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific)

masses of *broda* of size *n* (each).

• m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of broda out

of the specific masses of broda"?*

• m* *loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean

"m masses
of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?*

• lo'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets

of *broda*

• lo'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific)

sets of *broda* of size *n* (each).

• m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out

of the specific sets of broda"?*

• m* *lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets

of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?*

• le broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* or masses of *broda* but

these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial)

• le **n** broda* means "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / masses of
• broda* out

of the specific *n* *broda*".

• m* *le broda *means "*m* individual *broda* out of the specific *broda*".

• m* *le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".*

• lei broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this

and *le broda*

• lei **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of *

broda* of size *n* (each).

• m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda".*

• m* *lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific

masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specific
masses of broda are there?*

• le'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *broda*

• le'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *

broda* of size *n* (each).

• m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".*

• m* *le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets

of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of
broda are there?*

Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a
(possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of *broda*, but instead of
substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we
substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example *su'o re pixa loi
nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means "at least two groups of men exist such that
60% of each group carry the piano(s)". I guess that when a group of men
carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey
the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense
that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if
only giving instructions), we have to say *pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno* .
On the other hand, if we say *pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno* rather than *pa
pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno* , it is possible that the context implies
that all of the men in the group *are* involved in carrying the piano after
all. Did I get this right?

Here is where problems arise. 1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in lo mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the usual conditions, to claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks. I'm less sure about whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later suggests not). 2) I would hold that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce. As a result, I don't think the sentence is a good translation for "I need a doctor," which does not entail that there is a doctor I need : it is compatible with there being no doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being the one I need (indeed, no several of them being the several I need). This is because "need" may open (and in this case usually does) an intensional context, where several usual laws of logic fail. In Lojban, the decision was made (well, actually, the consensus eventually arose, more or less overtly) that there would be no such places in any predicate. To fill the need for
such locutions, which turn up all over the place — another reason for not assigning this property to places is that many places are sometimes intensional and sometimes not, there would be a number intensional locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes with odd results). References to events and propositions are two of the most common such types and are regularly used for this purpose, their characteristic introduction (nu, etc.) marking the context as intensional, logic keep out. Insofar as I understand xorlo at this point, I think it says that a) there are no intensional contexts or at least that they don't apply to this case, and b) that the inference from mi nitcu lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se nitcu mi is valid. This seems to mean that lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywhere (and thus is useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taking it back historically to the very different lo of Logan, which
stood, at various times in its history for masses in the blender sense and whatever it is that Trobriand Islanders refer to when they see a bit of bunny, among other things). I think this problem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar notion of how the universe of discourse is expanded and contracted during a conversation, basically that anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be in (obviously, not really this crude). None of this affects the use of lo mikce in lo mikce cu tavla (except, of course, that the explanation at the metalanguage level of why it works is eerily complex).

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:38:30 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
>The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I need
>>a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists or
>>that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor in
>>mind) that I need.

This is strange. Then, lo mikce cu tavla doesn't mean that a doctor exists which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?!

BTW,
What's up with the *gadri* proposal administratively speaking? As far as I
understand, it goes back at least to 2004. Why haven't it been introduced
into the grammar reference yet? Is it still under evaluation, and if so,
when will it be finally accepted into the language?

Perhaps a better translation would be *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu *Roughly
speaking, "I need the event of something being a doctor". Since abstractions
do not have to correspond to things that actually exist, it's OK.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Here is where problems arise. 1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in lo
> mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the usual conditions, to
> claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks. I'm less sure about
> whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later suggests not). 2) I would hold
> that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce. As a result, I don't think
> the sentence is a good translation for "I need a doctor," which does not
> entail that there is a doctor I need : it is compatible with there being no
> doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being the one
> I need (indeed, no several of them being the several I need). This is
> because "need" may open (and in this case usually does) an intensional
> context, where several usual laws of logic fail. In Lojban, the decision
> was made (well, actually, the consensus eventually arose, more or less
> overtly) that there would be no such places in any predicate. To fill the
> need for such locutions, which turn up all over the place — another reason
> for not assigning this property to places is that many places are sometimes
> intensional and sometimes not, there would be a number intensional
> locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes with odd results).
> References to events and propositions are two of the most common such types
> and are regularly used for this purpose, their characteristic introduction (
> nu, etc.) marking the context as intensional, logic keep out. Insofar as
> I understand xorlo at this point, I think it says that a) there are no
> intensional contexts or at least that they don't apply to this case, and b)
> that the inference from mi nitcu lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se nitcu miis valid. This seems to mean that
> lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywhere (and thus is
> useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taking it back
> historically to the very different lo of Logan, which stood, at various
> times in its history for masses in the blender sense and whatever it is that
> Trobriand Islanders refer to when they see a bit of bunny, among other
> things). I think this problem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar
> notion of how the universe of discourse is expanded and contracted during a
> conversation, basically that anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be
> in (obviously, not really this crude). None of this affects the use of lo
> mikce in lo mikce cu tavla (except, of course, that the explanation at the
> metalanguage level of why it works is eerily complex).
>
> ----------
> *From:* Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:38:30 PM
> *Subject:* lojban Re: xorlo
>

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>>
>> The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I
>> need
>> a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor exists
>> or
>> that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular doctor
>> in
>> mind) that I need.
>
>
> This is strange. Then, *lo mikce cu tavla* doesn't mean that a doctor
> exists which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?!
>
>

Of course in this particular case, higher precision of meaning would be
achieved by *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu mi*

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> Perhaps a better translation would be *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu *Roughly
> speaking, "I need the event of something being a doctor". Since abstractions
> do not have to correspond to things that actually exist, it's OK.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:37 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Here is where problems arise. 1) I would claim that lo mikce as used in
>> lo mikce cu tavla commits the speaker, under the usual conditions, to
>> claiming that there is at least one doctor who talks. I'm less sure about
>> whether this applies in xorlo (xorxes later suggests not). 2) I would hold
>> that the same applies to mi nitcu lo mikce. As a result, I don't think
>> the sentence is a good translation for "I need a doctor," which does not
>> entail that there is a doctor I need : it is compatible with there being no
>> doctors at all and with there being doctors but no one of them being the one
>> I need (indeed, no several of them being the several I need). This is
>> because "need" may open (and in this case usually does) an intensional
>> context, where several usual laws of logic fail. In Lojban, the decision
>> was made (well, actually, the consensus eventually arose, more or less
>> overtly) that there would be no such places in any predicate. To fill the
>> need for such locutions, which turn up all over the place — another reason
>> for not assigning this property to places is that many places are sometimes
>> intensional and sometimes not, there would be a number intensional
>> locutions which could go anywhere (though sometimes with odd results).
>> References to events and propositions are two of the most common such types
>> and are regularly used for this purpose, their characteristic introduction (
>> nu, etc.) marking the context as intensional, logic keep out. Insofar as
>> I understand xorlo at this point, I think it says that a) there are no
>> intensional contexts or at least that they don't apply to this case, and b)
>> that the inference from mi nitcu lo mikce to da poi mikce cu se nitcu miis valid. This seems to mean that
>> lo inherently gives rise to intensional contexts everywhere (and thus is
>> useless for most of the purposes we want to use it for, taking it back
>> historically to the very different lo of Logan, which stood, at various
>> times in its history for masses in the blender sense and whatever it is that
>> Trobriand Islanders refer to when they see a bit of bunny, among other
>> things). I think this problem arose because xorxes has a rather peculiar
>> notion of how the universe of discourse is expanded and contracted during a
>> conversation, basically that anything that gets mentioned anywhere has to be
>> in (obviously, not really this crude). None of this affects the use of lo
>> mikce in lo mikce cu tavla (except, of course, that the explanation at
>> the metalanguage level of why it works is eerily complex).
>>
>> ----------
>> *From:* Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
>> *To:* lojban-list@lojban.org
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:38:30 PM
>> *Subject:* lojban Re: xorlo
>>

>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>>>
>>> The main advantage to xorlo in ordinary speech is that now we can say "I
>>> need
>>> a doctor" ("mi nitcu lo mikce") without implying that such a doctor
>>> exists or
>>> that there is a particular doctor (though I don't have a particular
>>> doctor in
>>> mind) that I need.
>>
>>
>> This is strange. Then, *lo mikce cu tavla* doesn't mean that a doctor
>> exists which is speaking. Does it mean anything at all?!
>>
>>
>

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> Of course in this particular case, higher precision of meaning would be
> achieved by *mi nitcu lo nu mikcu mi*
>

Sorry, I meant mi nitcu lo nu mikce mi

As I said below, at the moment it looks to me as if *loi broda* is the same
as *lo broda* and *le broda* is the same as *lei broda* (when no inner or
outer quantifiers are present). Wouldn't it more logical to restrict the
meaning of *lo* and *le* to individuals (rather than include masses),
whereas e.g. *loi broda* would retain the meaning of the current proposal's

• lo broda* ? The thing is, an individual is a degenerate kind of mass (a

mass consisting of 1 object) while a mass is not any kind of individual.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> LOL, so *you* are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended!
>
> OK, let me take another shot at understanding the *gadri* proposal.
>
> *lo broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* , masses of *broda* (or
> even sets of *broda* ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of
> entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic
> *broda* . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction
> is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least
> one *broda*" but not "exactly one *broda*" or "at most one *broda*". At
> least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning
> is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one
> meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.
> For example, *lo nanmu bevri le pipno* can mean anything from "a man
> carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all
> men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "*the* man carries the
> piano(s)".
>
> *lo **n** broda* can mean either "*n* *broda *, divided into masses in the
> way (whatever)" (*n* *broda* regarded individually is a special case where
> each mass consists of 1 *broda*) or "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* /
> masses of *broda* out of the *n* *broda*".
>
> *m* *lo broda *means "*m* individual *broda*". This is way more specific
> than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the *m* *broda* out of the
> specific *broda*"?
>
> *m* *lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I
> don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It
> doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n
> broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should
> we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the
> meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two
> persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third?
> Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why
> wouldn't we use le ?*
>
> *loi broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this
> and *lo broda*
>
> *loi **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific)
> masses of *broda* of size *n* (each).
>
> *m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of
> broda out of the specific masses of broda"?*
>
> *m* *loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses
> of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?*
>
> *lo'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets
> of *broda*
>
> *lo'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or
> specific) sets of *broda* of size *n* (each).
>
> *m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out
> of the specific sets of broda"?*
>
> *m* *lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets
> of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?*
>
> *le broda* can mean any quantifier applied to *broda* or masses of *broda* but
> these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial)
>
> *le **n** broda* means "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* / masses of *
> broda* out of the specific *n* *broda*".
>
> *m* *le broda *means "*m* individual *broda* out of the specific *broda*".
>
> *m* *le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".*
>
> *lei broda* means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this
> and *le broda*
>
> *lei **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of
> *broda* of size *n* (each).
>
> *m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda
> ".*
>
> *m* *lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific
> masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many
> specific masses of broda are there?*
>
> *le'i broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *broda*
>
> *le'i **n** broda* can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of *
> broda* of size *n* (each).
>
> *m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".*
>
> *m* *le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific
> sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets
> of broda are there?*
>
> Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a
> (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of *broda*, but instead of
> substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we
> substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example *su'o re pixa loi
> nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means "at least two groups of men exist such that
> 60% of each group carry the piano(s)". I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
> something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey
> the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense
> that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if
> only giving instructions), we have to say *pa piro loi nanmu bevri le
> pipno* . On the other hand, if we say *pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno* rather
> than *pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno* , it is possible that the
> context implies that all of the men in the group *are* involved in
> carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right?
>
>

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>wrote:

> *lo **n** broda* can mean either "*n* *broda *, divided into masses in the
> way (whatever)" (*n* *broda* regarded individually is a special case where
> each mass consists of 1 *broda*) or "(whatever quantifier) of *broda* /
> masses of *broda* out of the *n* *broda*".
>
In the light of my remarks on fractional outer quantifiers, a broader
interpretation is conceivable. It is possible that we're talking about
"(whatever quantifier) of *broda* out of a (specific/generic) mass of *n* *
broda".* That is, *lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno* meanst that (whatever
quantifier) out of a group of 3 men carry the piano. In particular, the
quantifier doesn't have to select all 3 men. In this case, the relevance of
the 3 is that they form a group, united by something beyond carrying a
piano. Alternatively, it is possible that the *n* *broda* do not form a mass
in any way but all of them are involved to some extent in the predicate
(whether individually or as a part of a group).

> *m* *lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I
> don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It
> doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n
> broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should
> we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the
> meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two
> persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third?
> Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why
> wouldn't we use le ?*
>
The above remarks apply here as well, solving the problem. *re lo ci nanmu
cu bevri le pipno* means that two men out of a *group* of 3 carry the
piano(s) (individually).

In a message dated 9/8/2009 08:48:54 Eastern Daylight Time,
phma@phma.optus.nu writes:

> > Also, what happens when we run out of *da de di* (that is, 3 variables
> > aren't enough) ?
>
> daxire etc.
>
> Pierre
>

Is "daxipa" distinct from "da"? I would think so, but you started with
"daxire", and I don't know why.

stevo

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:31:50 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

LOL, so you are xorxe. Sorry:
no offense intended!
OK, let me take another shot at understanding the gadri proposal.
lo broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda , masses of broda
I don't see what quantifiers have to do with the issue; it can refer to any (bunch of) men This is a theological argument; philosophical arguments occasionally have a point — see quite appropriate G. Ryles on %22Where is the University%22

(or even sets of broda ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different nature)
Ah, just the point sets are a different thing from the men who are in them and xorxes thinks bunches are too and Ryle's questioner about the university as well. lo broda does not refer to sets of broda, that lo broda gunma or some such thing or lo'i broda. It probably doesn'[t refer to masses of brodas either, but that notion is to mixed up still to allow one to be sure. And, of course, akll of this may be wrong if the part of xorlo that deals with what logicians have called since forever intensional contexts is right.

. Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda

I am not sure what a generic broda is; I can refer to brodas generically or specifically or individually or ... but they are the same brodas. I think the idea of generic brodas is somehow hooked up with the mysterious part of xorlo.

The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one broda" but not "exactly one broda" or "at most one broda".

Again, I don't get the quantifiers; do they arise with le? We can specify how many broda we are referring to by the internal quantification — and all of these — except maybe "at most one" — are ok. We can enumerate brodas from the bunch: from those we are referring to with external quantifiers.

At least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.
Lost again. What two meanings?

For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno can mean anything from "a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "the man carries the piano(s)".
Well, I would say no to "several groups of men;" that seems to suggest more structure than lo requires and so to need lo so'o nanmu gunma or some such.

lo n broda can mean either "n broda , divided into masses in the way (whatever)" (n broda regarded individually is a special case where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the n broda".
Again, I would avoid "mass" here altogether, but more inportantly, lo n broda says nothing about the brodas being divided into sub-groupings bunches don't have these anyway; they are just the n brodas being considered together. And no masses, etc. out of anything (well, out of all the brodas, I suppose, but that is usually not interesting and isn't actually said here).

m lo broda means "m individual broda". This is way more specific than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m broda out of the specific broda"?
It means m individual brodas, taken separately %22each of m %22 out of the bunch of brodas identified as lo broda

m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ?

In m le n broda, the things don't have to be brodas, the speaker is just calling them that to befuddle us.

It doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use le ?
Ah yes, There are t least three levels of history going on here sometimes and I get lost as to which one is the one being used at the moment, so I tend to stick to the most coherent one as long as I can. In general, le has to be specific (if that is the right word, I never did get all those distinctions down pat, a problem in which I am not alone apparently) since its referent can only be located by the selection of the speaker. lo doesn't have to be, since its referent can be found by looking at the brodas in the situation and seeing which ones fit. So, lo ends up being as specific as le some of the time and other times not but the way of making generic claims. Context we say %22converational implicatures%22 to sound learned will usually tell which, So, look around: are there three guys handy? it's them, and the third is there because he's hanging with the others (note: context includes the rest of the discourse, where I would expect the three to be
mentioned separately). And we don't use le because they were self selected and really are nanmu.

loi broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and lo broda
As noted, masses are another thing altogether and dealt with in a muddle of past history and new attempts at various things. I've lost track of just where they are at the moment.

loi n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
Even here I don't see where quantifiers come into the picture. it just a mass of n brodas, whatever that may be.

m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda"?
I'm not sure what this means altogether; each possibilty is eithfr nonsensical or at variance with the rest of the pattern

m loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?lo'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda
Yet again, why quantifiers? It's just a set of brodas (no problems here with intermediate notions).

lo'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
Just an n-member set of brodas

m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda"?Here I am not sure, but I think it is just m brodas from the set of n, taken individually (cf. lo)
m lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?
le broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda or masses of broda but these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial)
No, it's just the bunch of things I have in mind and am choosing to call brodas. No quantifiers at issue (that's so 1990s).
le n broda means "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the specific n broda".
Just the specified bunch of n so-called brodas. Why quantifiers?

m le broda means "m individual broda out of the specific broda".
"Specified" brodas are about as specific — even individual — as things get.

m le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".
But note (I think) that the n may not be accurate either (like the broda).

lei broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and le broda
lei n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda".
m lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specific masses of broda are there?le'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda
le'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".
m le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of broda are there?
I stopped the line-by-line since it is all repetitive here.

Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of broda, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least two groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".
Where is this coming from? "at least 2.6 men from the men carry the so-called piano" Not very sensible, but possible. Fractional also have along and occasionally contradictory history, which (so far as I can find) the baseline folk have never nailed down — or done so obviously incorrectly.

I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the piano.
Yep! Just like when a team wins a game, some members may not even have played.

This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have to say pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno . On the other hand, if we say pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno rather than pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno , it is possible that the context implies that all of the men in the group are involved in carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right?
Lord knows! Especially if you bring loi and the like in. I'm not sure whether there is an easy way to say that all of the specified bunch participated in the carrying — other than saying that, of course — and I can't remember the word for "participate."

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL, so you are xorxe. Sorry: no offense intended!

None taken! It's either "Jorge" or "xorxes" though. "xorxe" has gismu
form, and while I don't mind the use of unassigned gismu forms as
names, some people do object to them. I adopted "xorxes" long before I
realized that any gismu forms, assigned or not, are pretty harmless as
names, so maybe if I were choosing a Lojban name today I would go with
"xorxe", but I'm too used to "xorxes" now to change.

> OK, let me take another shot at understanding the gadri proposal.
>
> lo broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda ,

I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have
a quantifier at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the
so called "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the
logic sense). "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo
prenu cu bajra" would be something like B(p), while a quantified
expression like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This
may not seem important for such simple examples, but it does make a
difference for more complex cases.

> masses of broda (or even
> sets of broda ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely
> different nature).

Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why
I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two
views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
(2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
(1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
"lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
pick the one you like most.

> Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda . The
> precise meaning comes from the context.

Yes.

> The only restriction is that the
> quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one broda"
> but not "exactly one broda" or "at most one broda".

No, there is no outer quantifier at all. It's a constant. Possibly a
plural constant, with more than one referent.

> At least this seems a
> reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It
> seems too weird to let the context decide between one meaning and another
> meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.

I agree that allowing there to be ghost quantifiers is a bad idea.

> For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno can mean anything from "a man carries
> the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
> carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "the man carries the piano(s)".

I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like
possible readings.

> lo n broda can mean either "n broda , divided into masses in the way
> (whatever)" (n broda regarded individually is a special case where each mass
> consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of
> broda out of the n broda".

"lo mu nanmu" is just "five men". I'm not sure what all those masses
are doing there.

> m lo broda means "m individual broda". This is way more specific than the
> previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m broda out of the specific
> broda"?

"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full bridi. A
quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until
you give a bridi. For example:

mu lo nanmu cu bajra

means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of them
are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without the full
bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of the
referents of "lo nanmu".

> m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda".

m of them what? Until you put it in a bridi, it doesn't really mean anything.

> Hmm, I don't
> like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ?

The outer quantifier works the same for any sumti. It tells you for
how many of the referents of the sumti will the bridi be true. If the
sumti is "le mu nanmu", then the referents in question are the five
men that the speaker has in mind. If the sumti is "lo mu nanmu", then
the referent may be five men the speaker has in mind, but it might
also be more generic.

> It doesn't
> appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a
> person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
> about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning
> conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are
> carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
> specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use
> le ?

Maybe that's why those forms are not used much. Let's say "two out of
three persons who will be chosen at random will do one thing, and the
remaining person will do something else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I
don't have anyone in mind as to who the three persons chosen at random
will be.

> loi broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and
> lo broda

It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo
broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"
indicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied
collectively, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the
other.

> loi n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses
> of broda of size n (each).

Same comment as before: no quantifier, it's a constant.

> m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses
> of broda out of the specific masses of broda"?

To me it means "m lo gunma be lo broda".

> m loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean
> "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?

"m lo gunma be lo n broda".

> lo'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of
> broda
>
> lo'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets
> of broda of size n (each).

No quantifier, they are constants. But I don't use sets so I don't care much.

> m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out
> of the specific sets of broda"?

Yes, according to me it's "m lo selcmi be lo broda"

> m lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets
> of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?

Yes, "m lo selcmi be lo n broda"

(I deleted the "le" cases, because the comments are all basically the same.)

> Now there are fractional outer quantifiers.

These are also not really quantifiers in a logical sense.

> I guess they mean we apply a
> (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of broda, but instead of
> substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we
> substitute a (non-specific) portion of it.

Not sure what you mean there.

> For example su'o re pixa loi
> nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least two groups of men exist such that
> 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".

"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa
loi nanmu", ät least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.

> I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
> something beyond them carrying a piano together.

If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a
group. A selbri meaning ïs a group" should be used.

> So, if we want to convey
> the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense
> that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if
> only giving instructions), we have to say pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno .
> On the other hand, if we say pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno rather than pa
> pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le pipno , it is possible that the context implies
> that all of the men in the group are involved in carrying the piano after
> all. Did I get this right?

"pa pi ro" is a single number with three "digits". No idea what number
it is though. Perhaps it's equivalent to 2.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:05:22 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

As I said below, at the moment it looks to me as if loi broda is the same as lo broda and le broda is the same as lei broda (when no inner or outer quantifiers are present).
Nope,they aren't the same

Wouldn't it more logical to restrict the meaning of lo and le to individuals (rather than include masses), whereas e.g. loi broda would retain the meaning of the current proposal's lo broda ?
Butlo and le are about individuals, just more than one of them (possibly) at a time and they are neither of them about masses at all.

The thing is, an individual is a degenerate kind of mass (a mass consisting of 1 object) while a mass is not any kind of individual.
Well, masses are individuals, just a different kind from what they are masses of usually and it is unclear whether an individual is a degenerate mass (largely because it is unclear what a mass is).

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:

LOL, so you are xorxe. Sorry:
>no offense intended!
>OK, let me take another shot at understanding the gadri proposal.
>lo broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda , masses of broda (or even sets of broda ?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely different nature). Moreover, it can refer to specific or generic broda . The precise meaning comes from the context. The only restriction is that the quantifier is "positive" in the sense that we can have "at least one broda" but not "exactly one broda" or "at most one broda". At least this seems a reasonable constraint to me, since otherwise the meaning is reversed. It seems too weird to let the context decide between one meaning and another meaning which is the exact opposite of the first.
>>
>For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipno can mean anything from "a man carries the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "the man carries the piano(s)".
>lo n broda can mean either "n broda , divided into masses in the way (whatever)" (n broda regarded individually is a special case where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the n broda".
>m lo broda means "m individual broda". This is way more specific than the previous constructs. Can it also mean "the m broda out of the specific broda"?
>m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use le ?
>loi broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and lo broda
>loi n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
>m loi broda means "m masses of broda". Can it also mean "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda"?
>m loi n broda means "m masses of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda"?lo'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda
>lo'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (generic or specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
>m lo'i broda means "m sets of broda". Can it also mean "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda"?
>m lo'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n". Can it also mean "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda"?
>le broda can mean any quantifier applied to broda or masses of broda but these have to be specific (and it's not veridicial)le n broda means "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the specific n broda".
>m le broda means "m individual broda out of the specific broda".
>m le n broda means "m individual broda out of the specific n broda".
>lei broda means... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and le broda
>lei n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) masses of broda of size n (each).
>m lei broda means "m masses of broda out of the specific masses of broda".
>m lei n broda means "m masses of broda of size n out of the specific masses of broda". Hmm, does it mean there is no way to say how many specific masses of broda are there?le'i broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda
>le'i n broda can mean any quantifier applied to (specific) sets of broda of size n (each).
>m le'i broda means "m sets of broda out of the specific sets of broda".
>m le'i n broda means "m sets of broda of size n out of the specific sets of broda". Does it mean there is no way to say how many specific sets of broda are there?
>Now there are fractional outer quantifiers. I guess they mean we apply a (possibly contextual) quantifier to masses of broda, but instead of substituting the mass which is our variable into the predicate, we substitute a (non-specific) portion of it. For example su'o re pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least two groups of men exist such that 60% of each group carry the piano(s)". I guess that when a group of men carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is something beyond them carrying a piano together. So, if we want to convey the meaning that "a single group of 5 men carries the piano" in the sense that each of the men actually has something to do with carrying it (even if only giving instructions), we have to say pa piro loi nanmu bevri le pipno . On the other hand, if we say pa loi nanmu bevri le pipno rather than pa pisu'o loi nanmu bevri le
pipno , it is possible that the context implies that all of the men in the group are involved in carrying the piano after all. Did I get this right?

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:17:28 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:

lo n broda can mean either "n broda , divided into masses in the way (whatever)" (n broda regarded individually is a special case where each mass consists of 1 broda) or "(whatever quantifier) of broda / masses of broda out of the n broda".
In the light of my remarks on fractional outer quantifiers, a broader interpretation is conceivable. It is possible that we're talking about "(whatever quantifier) of broda out of a (specific/generic) mass of n broda". That is, lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno meanst that (whatever quantifier) out of a group of 3 men carry the piano. In particular, the quantifier doesn't have to select all 3 men. In this case, the relevance of the 3 is that they form a group, united by something beyond carrying a piano.

Actually, carrying the piano is enough as is almost anything else, but mainly someone taking them together.
Without a quantifier, it just means that the three carry the piano together (however that may be done in the terms of what each one does) not some subbunch of them. And this is not a mass.
Alternatively, it is possible that the n broda do not form a mass in any way but all of them are involved to some extent in the predicate (whether individually or as a part of a group).

Directly only as part of the bunch (one of the men referred to). Individually, they only participate in the carrying.

m lo n broda means "m individual broda out of the n broda". Hmm, I don't like this. What is the difference between this and m le n broda ? It doesn't appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of n broda . "a person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Two persons are carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use le ?
The above remarks apply here as well, solving the problem. re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno means that two men out of a group of 3 carry the piano(s) (individually).

Yep, except for the dangers of using "group" (I do partially agree with xorxes about these dangers, especially when the word involved has an established meaning).

Ancient theological dispute: do the natural numbers start with 0 or 1. Followed by the question of whether the unsubscripted variables are outside the ordering or short for the first tier. I actually start with daxino, which tells you I learned my arithemetic at UCLA in the 60s.

From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:45:07 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

In a message dated 9/8/2009 08:48:54 Eastern Daylight Time, phma@phma.optus.nu writes:

> Also, what happens when we run out of *da de di* (that is, 3 variables
>
>> aren't enough) ?
>
>
>daxire etc.
>
>
>Pierre
>
>

Is "daxipa" distinct from "da"? I would think so, but you started with "daxire", and I don't know why.

stevo

In a message dated 9/8/2009 22:11:53 Eastern Daylight Time,
kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:

> I actually start with daxino, which tells you I learned my arithemetic
> at UCLA in the 60s.
>

I almost wrote "daxino", but decided "daxipa" would get my point across.
The only clue that would have told me that you learned your arithmetic at
UCLA in the 60s is you telling me so. I know nothing about learning
arithmetic at UCLA in the 60s. How did you not know arithmetic before going to
UCLA? Or how do mean the phrase "learn arithmetic"?

stevo

OK, "arithmetic" in the technical sense, i.e., the theory of the natural numbers, from Peano's axioms or Frege's or from set theory by any of various routes — or all of the above. West Coast (vs. East) in the 60's seems to have been characterized by (among several other points) by starting the natural numbers at 0 and by using variable outside the ordering to begin with, then switching over to ordinals beginning with 0. "UCLA" is just hubris, though that is where most of this stuff was done in those days. But Berkeley would do almost as well, even Stanford, but definitely not Harvard or Princeton

From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:33:52 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

In a message dated 9/8/2009 22:11:53 Eastern Daylight Time, kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:

I actually start with daxino, which tells you I learned my arithemetic at UCLA in the 60s.
>
>

I almost wrote "daxino", but decided "daxipa" would get my point across.
The only clue that would have told me that you learned your arithmetic at UCLA in the 60s is you telling me so. I know nothing about learning arithmetic at UCLA in the 60s. How did you not know arithmetic before going to UCLA? Or how do mean the phrase "learn arithmetic"?

stevo

2009/9/9 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > lo brodaácan mean any quantifier applied to brodaá,
>
> I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have
> a quantifier at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the
> so called "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the
> logic sense). "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo
> prenu cu bajra" would be something like B(p), while a quantified
> expression like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This
> may not seem important for such simple examples, but it does make a
> difference for more complex cases.
>

I don't understand. Consider the sentence *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* The
English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".
What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the addition
of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
possible meanings are
"A man carries the piano(s)"*
"*Some men carry the piano(s)"
"Many men carry the piano(s)"
"Most men carry the piano(s)"
"All men carry the piano(s)"
et cetera, and also variants with "the", although why would we use

• lo*rather than
• le* for these?

Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense,
since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence
contains a context-dependent quantifier.

> > masses of brodaá(or even
> > sets of brodaá?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely
> > different nature).
>
> Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why
> I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two
> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
> is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
> pick the one you like most.
>

I don't understand the practical difference between the views. When I say *lo
nanmu cu bevri le pipno* can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together?
If so, what is the difference between that and saying *loi nanmu cu bevri *?
Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying
the piano together?

> > For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipnoácan mean anything from "a man
> carries
> > the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
> > carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "theáman carries the piano(s)".
>
> I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like
> possible readings.
>

If *lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno* can mean that the men carry the piano(s)
together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into
several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and
doing it individually. Am I wrong?

> > málo broda means "máindividual broda". This is way more specific than the
> > previous constructs. Can it also mean "the mábrodaáout of the specific
> > broda"?
>
> "mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full bridi. A
> quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until
> you give a bridi. For example:
>
> mu lo nanmu cu bajra
>
> means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of them
> are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without the full
> bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of the
> referents of "lo nanmu".
>

I understand that you have to put in a *bridi* . I was speaking imprecisely,
for brevity's sake. What about *mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* ? Can they
carry the piano(s) together?

> It doesn't
> > appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of nábrodaá.
> "a
> > person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
> > about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning
> > conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipnoá. Two persons are
> > carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
> > specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we
> use
> > leá?
>
> Maybe that's why those forms are not used much. Let's say "two out of
> three persons who will be chosen at random will do one thing, and the
> remaining person will do something else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I
> don't have anyone in mind as to who the three persons chosen at random
> will be.
>

I agree it might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative
clause is attached.

>
> > loi brodaámeans... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this
> and
> > lo broda
>
> It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo
> broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"
> indicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied
> collectively, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the
> other.
>

Consider *loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* . Does it mean that the men carry the
piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups? If the
later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back
to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with *lo* . If the former,
does it make it the same as *pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno* ?

> > For exampleásu'o re pixa loi
> > nanmu cu bevri le pipnoámeans "at least two groups of men exist such that
> > 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".
>
> "su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa
> loi nanmu", Å„t least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.
>

Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer
quantifier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction
quantifiers as well?

> I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
> something beyond them carrying a piano together.

If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a
> group. A selbri meaning ´s a group" should be used.
>

So now you're saying *loi* only indicates joint action or joint whatever,
not grouping in any other sense. But *lo* can indicate "joint whatever" as
well. What is the difference? Also, what is the meaning of *pixa loi nanmu
cu bevri le pipno* ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what
makes the men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to
be something else. However, you also claim *loi* cannot be used to indicate
such an additional group relationship.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The
> English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".
> What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.

But it does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfoñd dlfhi" has no meaning, but
"lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a
situation of carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried
thing(s) are specific things the speaker has in mind and that they
describe as pianos.

> With the addition
> of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
> possible meanings are
> "A man carries the piano(s)"
> "Some men carry the piano(s)"
> "Many men carry the piano(s)"
> "Most men carry the piano(s)"
> "All men carry the piano(s)"
> et cetera,

I don't think so. You seem to be saying that grammatical sentences in
English do have meaning, but grammatical sentences in Lojban don't
have meaning until we can decide which English sentence we would use
to describe the same situation. The English sentence "A man carries
the piano" doesn't tell you what color the piano is, so in what sense
is that more meaningful than "lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno", which
doesn't tell you how many pianos (or of what color) are involved? In
some context, "a piano" may refer to a black piano, but that doesn't
mean "a piano" doesn't have meaning until we have enough context to
figure out what color the piano is.

> and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather
> than le for these?

If you know that the piano is black, why would you say "a piano"
rather than "a black piano"? Perhaps the color is irrelevant, or
obvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a woman", except that
the piano the woman carries happens to be white, so if you had said "a
man carries a black piano", then adding "and so does a woman" wouldn't
work anymore. There are many possible reasons for not saying as much
as you could say in a given context.

> Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense,
> since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence
> contains a context-dependent quantifier.

The Lojban contains information about the number of pianos to the same
extent that it contains information about the color of the piano(s).
In English, it's hard to escape giving some information about the
number. It can be done but the wording ends up being more clumsy than
the most natural expression. In Lojban the one that doesn't involve
the number is the most natural expression.

>> For "loi" there are (at least) two
>> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
>> is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
>> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
>> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
>> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
>> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
>> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
>> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
>> pick the one you like most.
>
> I don't understand the practical difference between the views.

As I said, in practice it doesn't really matter much which view you use.

I prefer (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers
systematic: an outer quantifier always tells you how many out of all
the referents of the sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti
whatsoever. That breaks down for masses if you use view (1).

> When I say lo
> nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together?

Yes.

> If so, what is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu bevri ?

With "loi" it can only be that the men carry it together. With "lo" it
is not said whether they carry it together or whether each carries it,
or whether they carry it in groups of two, or whether one carries it
by himself and the rest carry it together, or ... "lo doesn't tell you
anything about the distribution of men, just as it doesn't say
anything about the color of the piano.

Also, if you say "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno", you can add "gi'e dasni
lo xunre creka". If you use "loi", you would be saying that they wear
a red shirt together, with "lo" each can be wearing his own shirt.

> Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying
> the piano together?

No. All "loi" does in "loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno" is insist that
they do the carrying together.

> If lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno can mean that the men carry the piano(s)
> together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into
> several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and
> doing it individually. Am I wrong?

You are right, in the sense that the sentence would be true in the
situation. It doesn't mean that in the sense that nothing of the sort
is implied by the sentence (just as the color of the piano is not
implied).

> What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they
> carry the piano(s) together?

Outer quantifiers are always distributive. The sentence says that "x
bevri le pipno" is true five times, once each for a different value of
x, where the values of x are taken from the referents of "lo nanmu".

> Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the
> piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?

I guess it could in principle refer to several groups, although there
is no way to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already
used for the number of members of the group, not for the number of
groups.

> If the
> later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back
> to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo .

Yes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a single
individual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanmu"
is legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the
distinction it makes to be relevant.

> Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer
> quantifier simultaneously?

The grammar allows only one outer quantifier per sumti. There are
tricks to get around that though, if you think it would make sense.

> Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction
> quantifiers as well?

The grammar allows them, but who knows what they might mean.

> Also, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri
> le pipno ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the
> men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be
> something else. However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such
> an additional group relationship.

Good point. Fractional quantifiers (which are not true logical
quantifiers) are indeed badly understood. As you say, they would seem
to require the group to be a group for some other reason than because
they are carrying the piano.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

This gets into loi a lot and as I have said (and xorxes repeats) just what that means is not clear. xorxes lists two of the possibilities., but there is also the notion of a mass and probably some other things possible.

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:32:53 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

2009/9/9 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

>On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> lo brodaácan mean any quantifier applied to brodaá,
>
>>I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have
>>a quantifier at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the
>>so called "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the
>>logic sense). "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo
>>prenu cu bajra" would be something like B(p), while a quantified
>>expression like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This
>>may not seem important for such simple examples, but it does make a
>>difference for more complex cases.
>

I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)". What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the addition of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The possible meanings are
"A man carries the piano(s)"
"Some men carry the piano(s)"
"Many men carry the piano(s)"
"Most men carry the piano(s)"
"All men carry the piano(s)"
et cetera, and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather than le for these?
Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence contains a context-dependent quantifier.

Not le because not so specific and the last three are less plausible (though possible) readings. The first two carry quantifier words in English and if you take them seriously then the English is not a good translation of the Lojban :maybe "Men (maybe only one) carry the so-called piano"There is no indication of how any men are referred to, so not even internal quantifiers. %22many%22 is not a fuzzy quantifier, merely a vague one

>> masses of brodaá(or even
>>> sets of brodaá?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely
>>> different nature).
>
>>Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why
>>I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two
>>views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
>>is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
>>(2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
>>(1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
>>distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
>>distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
>>"lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
>>entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
>>pick the one you like most.
>

I don't understand the practical difference between the views. When I say lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together? If so, what is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu bevri ? Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying the piano together?
No. xorxes remembers things differently from the way I do butwe agree that at one time loiwas for collective argument and that later it was for some other type of entity, group or mass or whatever (but not set nor, because they are not another sort of entity, bunch). I think that lo has the default value of collective ,, with distribution handled by external quantifiers, xorxes apparently does not, taking that too to be handled by context, apparently. As I say, I do keep trying to make this all systematic, even though I know Lojban is not a logical language in the sense of being logical, but I would think it would at least keep up with the syntax of logic.

>> For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipnoácan mean anything from "a man carries
>
>> the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
>> carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "theáman carries the piano(s)".
>
>>I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like
>>possible readings.
>

If lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno can mean that the men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and doing it individually. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. It says that they carry the piano together, it does not say how they are deployed in this endeavor. So, it does not mean that they do it in groups (I suppose you mean subbunches, since groups in the later sense aren't the sort of things that can carry anything any more than a set usually can). It doesn't deny that they do it that way, but it doesn't even suggest that they do. It is compatible with all sorts of arrangements — subbunches, relays, workers and supervisors, etc. etc.

>> málo broda means "máindividual broda". This is way more specific than the
>>> previous constructs. Can it also mean "the mábrodaáout of the specific
>>> broda"?
>
>>"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full bridi. A
>>quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until
>>you give a bridi. For example:
>
>> mu lo nanmu cu bajra
>
>>means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of them
>>are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without the full
>>bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of the
>>referents of "lo nanmu".
>

I understand that you have to put in a bridi . I was speaking imprecisely, for brevity's sake. What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they carry the piano(s) together?

Well, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an external quantifier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possilbe that xorxes does not (since mine is based on taking loalone as always collective, which xorxes apparently does not).

>
>> It doesn't
>>> appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of nábrodaá. "a
>
>> person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
>>> about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning
>> conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipnoá. Two persons are
>
>> carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
>>> specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use
>> leá?
>
>>Maybe that's why those forms are not used much. Let's say "two out of
>>three persons who will be chosen at random will do one thing, and the
>>remaining person will do something else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I
>>don't have anyone in mind as to who the three persons chosen at random
>>will be.
>

I agree it might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative clause is attached.

Looks ok as it stands in the explanation of a test or assignment or some such. As I have said before, we may not know how the third person is in the group, only that he is.

>>> loi brodaámeans... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and
>>> lo broda
>
>>It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo
>>broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"
>>indicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied
>>collectively, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the
>>other.
>

Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the piano together, as a single group?
At one time, yes; now, I think not. The rest is irrelevant.
Or can it refer to several groups? If the later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo . If the former, does it make it the same as pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ?

>> For exampleásu'o re pixa loi
>>> nanmu cu bevri le pipnoámeans "at least two groups of men exist such that
>
>> 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".
>
>"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa
>>loi nanmu", Å„t least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.
>

Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer quantifier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction quantifiers as well?

It's not clear what you mean here; the example you give is not two quantifiers but one complex one, Xorxes points out how to get something like the two quantifiers you want but, as he notes, the results doesn't make a lot of sense, I am not sure just what to do to get what you want (I'm not sure just what you want even). It is surely more complex than just a string of different quantifiers. And, of course, there is the problem of wehat the heck "group" means.

> I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
> something beyond them carrying a piano together.

>If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a
>>group. A selbri meaning ´s a group" should be used.
>

So now you're saying loi only indicates joint action or joint whatever, not grouping in any other sense. But lo can indicate "joint whatever" as well. What is the difference?
I'd estimate about three years of discussion, getting the roles reassigned and more or less (obviously mainly less) cleared up.
Also, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be something else. However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such an additional group relationship.
Ignoring the problem with "group" we don't know what makes them that and context may not tell us much even; if there has to be something else (and I am not at all sure there does), we may never know what it is.

2009/9/9 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The
> > English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the
> piano(s)".
> > What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.
>
> But it does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfoñd dlfhi" has no meaning, but
> "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a
> situation of carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried
> thing(s) are specific things the speaker has in mind and that they
> describe as pianos.

Then *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means "at least one man carries the
piano(s)". This means precisely that a situation of men that carry the
piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there.

> > With the addition
> > of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
> > possible meanings are
> > "A man carries the piano(s)"
> > "Some men carry the piano(s)"
> > "Many men carry the piano(s)"
> > "Most men carry the piano(s)"
> > "All men carry the piano(s)"
> > et cetera,
>
> I don't think so. You seem to be saying that grammatical sentences in
> English do have meaning, but grammatical sentences in Lojban don't
> have meaning until we can decide which English sentence we would use
> to describe the same situation.

No. "Tables fall from the sky" also has no meaning outside context since
it's unclear whether that's a general property of tables or a statement
about certain tables in a specific situation. The only meaning that is safe
to infer without context is "at least two tables fall from the sky". In this
sense "tables fall from the sky" = "at least two tables fall from the sky".
The only difference is that in the former case it might be that the context
implies a stronger quantifier, whereas in the second case we are being
explicit about not claiming too much.

> > and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather
> > than le for these?
>
> If you know that the piano is black, why would you say "a piano"
> rather than "a black piano"?

No, since it would make the sentence longer. But *le* is as long as *lo* .

> Perhaps the color is irrelevant, or
> obvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a woman", except that
> the piano the woman carries happens to be white, so if you had said "a
> man carries a black piano", then adding "and so does a woman" wouldn't
> work anymore.

I agree that if you want to simultaneously refer several objects out of
which some are "the specific objects you have in mind" and some are generic,
you have to use the generic form.

>> For "loi" there are (at least) two
> >> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
> >> is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
> >> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
> >> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
> >> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
> >> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
> >> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
> >> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
> >> pick the one you like most.
> >
> > I don't understand the practical difference between the views.
>
> As I said, in practice it doesn't really matter much which view you use.
>
> I prefer (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers
> systematic: an outer quantifier always tells you how many out of all
> the referents of the sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti
> whatsoever. That breaks down for masses if you use view (1).

I don't get it. I thought the outer quantifier of *loi* is the number of
masses. How can this break down?

> Also, if you say "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno", you can add "gi'e dasni
> lo xunre creka". If you use "loi", you would be saying that they wear
> a red shirt together, with "lo" each can be wearing his own shirt.

Suppose I say *loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'e dasni lo xunre creka* Does
it mean the division into groups is the same regarding carrying pianos and
regarding wearing red shirts?

> > Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry
> the
> > piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?
>
> I guess it could in principle refer to several groups, although there
> is no way to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already
> used for the number of members of the group, not for the number of
> groups.
>
> > If the
> > later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are
> back
> > to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo .
>
> Yes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a single
> individual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanmu"
> is legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the
> distinction it makes to be relevant.
>

But since we don't know anything about the size of the groups, there is no
difference between *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno *and *loi nanmu cu bevri le
pipno* !

On Sep 9, 2009, at 16:28, Squark Rabinovich wrote:

> Then lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the
> piano(s)". This means precisely that a situation of men that carry
> the piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there.

Careful with that "we don't know".

- The speaker may know how many men, but not say so.

- The *listener* will not know how many.

This phrase is not specifically indeterminate in number in the way the
English "at least one ..." is; it just doesn't specify any number
other than at least one.

Similarly, in English "men carried the piano" implies there were su'o
re men carrying the piano, but it is not specifically not-specifying
the number, just leaving out the information.

--
Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

What's the difference between non-specifying information specifically and
non-specifically? Either you give the information or you don't. The only
difference I can imagine is that *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* allows for the
information to be specified by context. That is, the quantifier is implicit
and determined by context, but in every specific context it *is* there.
Perhaps you're saying that *lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means that at least
one man carries the piano with the subtext that the speaker might know the
actual number of men involved, whereas *su'o nanmu cu bevri le pipno* means
the speaker doesn't know the number of men? I don't think so: the later is
just a statement of fact without additional implications. If it's not, what

• would* be a plain statement of fact?

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Kevin Reid <kpreid@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2009, at 16:28, Squark Rabinovich wrote:
>
> Then lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the
>> piano(s)". This means precisely that a situation of men that carry the
>> piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there.
>>
>
> Careful with that "we don't know".
>
> - The speaker may know how many men, but not say so.
>
> - The *listener* will not know how many.
>
> This phrase is not specifically indeterminate in number in the way the
> English "at least one ..." is; it just doesn't specify any number other than
> at least one.
>
> Similarly, in English "men carried the piano" implies there were su'o re
> men carrying the piano, but it is not specifically not-specifying the
> number, just leaving out the information.
>
> --
> Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No. "Tables fall from the sky" also has no meaning outside context since
> it's unclear whether that's a general property of tables or a statement
> about certain tables in a specific situation.

I think we are simply disagreeing on what "means" means. In some
absolute sense, no sentence has any meaning outside context.

>> I prefer (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers
>> systematic: an outer quantifier always tells you how many out of all
>> the referents of the sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti
>> whatsoever. That breaks down for masses if you use view (1).
>
> I don't get it. I thought the outer quantifier of loi is the number of
> masses. How can this break down?

View (1) was:
(1) %22loi%22 merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti,

If the referents of "loi jubme" are tables rather than a mass, then to
follow the normal rule the outer quantifier on that sumti should
quantify over tables, not over masses. If the referents of "loi jubme"
are masses, an outer quantifier that quantifies over masses does
follow the normal pattern.

> Suppose I say loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'e dasni lo xunre creka Does
> it mean the division into groups is the same regarding carrying pianos and
> regarding wearing red shirts?

(There's no ".i" there. "gi'e" connects bridi tails.)

I would answer yes. It's the same as "ko'a goi loi nanmu zo'u ge ko'a
bevri le pipno gi ko'a dasni lo xunre creka".

> But since we don't know anything about the size of the groups, there is no
> difference between lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno and loi nanmu cu bevri le
> pipno !

My personal recommendation is to never use "lo'e", "le'e", "lo'i",
"le'i", and "la'i", and to avoid using "loi", "lei" and "lai", so if
you see no use for "loi" you are in agreement with me.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:14 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an external
> quantifier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possilbe that
> xorxes does not

I do agree that outer quantifiers are always distributive. Strangely
enough, we seem to be on the same page on practically everything (as
long as generics and intensional contexts don't crop up). This is a
very odd situation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 4:01:24 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

What's the difference between non-specifying information specifically and non-specifically? Either you give the information or you don't. The only difference I can imagine is that lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno allows for the information to be specified by context. That is, the quantifier is implicit and determined by context, but in every specific context it is there.
No, quantifiers are only there if the are actually there. We may be able to infer some quantified expression from an expression that does not have a quantifier, but that does not mean that that expression contains an implicit one.

Perhaps you're saying that lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means that at least one man carries the piano
It doesn't mean that, but it does entail it (with suitable precautions to deal with the distributive/collective issue)

with the subtext that the speaker might know the actual number of men involved, whereas su'o nanmu cu bevri le pipno means the speaker doesn't know the number of men? I don't think so: the later is just a statement of fact without additional implications. If it's not, what would be a plain statement of fact?
Why is there a subtext about what the speaker knows or doesn't in either case? Assuming the number doesn't matter (Rule of Relevance), there is no reason to fill out either. Note further that su'o nanmu requires the carrying to be distributive, while lo nanmu does not (and, I would say, precludes it). Under xorxes version, the plainest case would be the first one here, which leaves both number and distribution unspecified — with no implication about whether or not the speaker or anybody else knows how many are involved or how the work was divvied out. And with no quantifiers.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Kevin Reid <kpreid@mac.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 2009, at 16:28, Squark Rabinovich wrote:
>
>
>>>Then lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the piano(s)". This means precisely that a situation of men that carry the piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there.
>>
>
>Careful with that "we don't know".
>
>> - The speaker may know how many men, but not say so.
>
>> - The *listener* will not know how many.
>
>>This phrase is not specifically indeterminate in number in the way the English "at least one ..." is; it just doesn't specify any number other than at least one.
>
>>Similarly, in English "men carried the piano" implies there were su'o re men carrying the piano, but it is not specifically not-specifying the number, just leaving out the information.
>
>>--
>>Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
>>with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
>>you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Well, to ease both our discomforts, I note that we do disagree about whether lo requires a collective reading and about what , if anything, loi etc. mean.

--- Original Message --
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:08:29 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:14 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an external
> quantifier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possilbe that
> xorxes does not

I do agree that outer quantifiers are always distributive. Strangely
enough, we seem to be on the same page on practically everything (as
long as generics and intensional contexts don't crop up). This is a
very odd situation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

From: Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 3:28:57 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

2009/9/9 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Squark Rabinovich <top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The
>>> English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)".
>>> What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing.
>
>But it does. Something like "lshcdjkf jfoñd dlfhi" has no meaning, but
>>"lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno" does have meaning: it describes a
>>situation of carrying, where the carrier(s) are men and the carried
>>thing(s) are specific things the speaker has in mind and that they
>>describe as pianos.

Then lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno means "at least one man carries the piano(s)".
It doesn't mean this latter but it does entail it. It doesn't mean the next thing either, especially since, in the usual Lojban metaphysics (often called epistemology), this event (and all others) always exist, even when they don't obtain (have their positive ends pointed toward reality). Nothing is said about whether we know anything about the actual number

This means precisely that a situation of men that carry the piano(s) exists, but we don't know how many men are there.

>> With the addition
>>> of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The
>>> possible meanings are
>>> "A man carries the piano(s)"
>>> "Some men carry the piano(s)"
>>> "Many men carry the piano(s)"
>>> "Most men carry the piano(s)"
>>> "All men carry the piano(s)"
>>> et cetera,
>
>I don't think so. You seem to be saying that grammatical sentences in
>>English do have meaning, but grammatical sentences in Lojban don't
>>have meaning until we can decide which English sentence we would use
>>to describe the same situation.

No. "Tables fall from the sky" also has no meaning outside context since it's unclear whether that's a general property of tables or a statement about certain tables in a specific situation. The only meaning that is safe to infer without context is "at least two tables fall from the sky". In this sense "tables fall from the sky" = "at least two tables fall from the sky".
Not equivalent, the implication only goes left to right. But it is true that it could be a generic claim or a particular one for a particular situation. Nothing stronger is implied by the first version, i.e., not "a lot of tables" or "tables generally" or "Yesterday in Tegucicalpa" or anything else.

The only difference is that in the former case it might be that the context implies a stronger quantifier, whereas in the second case we are being explicit about not claiming too much.

> and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather
>>> than le for these?
>
>If you know that the piano is black, why would you say "a piano"
>>rather than "a black piano"?

No, since it would make the sentence longer. But le is as long as lo
But length doesn't appear to be the issue, which seems to be about information conveyed. Generally, the main difference in using lo rather than le is the gurantee that the thing is what it is said to be and the possibility that we can't say which ones exactly are involved..

> Perhaps the color is irrelevant, or
>>obvious, or perhaps you want to add "and so does a woman", except that
>>the piano the woman carries happens to be white, so if you had said "a
>>man carries a black piano", then adding "and so does a woman" wouldn't
>>work anymore.

I agree that if you want to simultaneously refer several objects out of which some are "the specific objects you have in mind" and some are generic, you have to use the generic form.

They ain't no such thing as generic things, so I don't quite know what you mean here, nor how it relates to xorxes' point, which is that if you over specify one item, then you can't hook on another that is the same at base but differs in the area of specificity.

>> For "loi" there are (at least) two
>>>> views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
>>>> is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
>>>> (2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
>>>> (1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
>>>> distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
>>>> distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
>>>> "lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
>>>> entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
>>>> pick the one you like most.
>>>
>>> I don't understand the practical difference between the views.
>
>As I said, in practice it doesn't really matter much which view you use.
>
>>I prefer (2) because it's the one that makes outer quantifiers
>>systematic: an outer quantifier always tells you how many out of all
>>the referents of the sumti satisfy the predicate. For any sumti
>>whatsoever. That breaks down for masses if you use view (1).

I don't get it. I thought the outer quantifier of loi is the number of masses. How can this break down?
That is just the problem, in general, n l- m broda gets n brodas out of the whatever, but this would give rather n whatevers of m brodas each, a very different sort of thing.

Also, if you say "lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno", you can add "gi'e dasni
>lo xunre creka". If you use "loi", you would be saying that they wear
>>a red shirt together, with "lo" each can be wearing his own shirt.

Suppose I say loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'e dasni lo xunre creka Does it mean the division into groups is the same regarding carrying pianos and regarding wearing red shirts?
Well, with loi it depends on what the heck that means (drop the i by the way, gi'e joins predicates within a sentence), it does appear — to me — to require the same distributivity (which gives xorxes' view an advantage). It doesn't say anything about groups notr division into groups.

> Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the
>>
>> piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups?
>
>I guess it could in principle refer to several groups, although there
>>is no way to indicate that because the inner quantifier is already
>>used for the number of members of the group, not for the number of
>
>groups.
>
>>> If the
>>> later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back
>>> to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo .
>
>Yes, you are right. It sems a bit perverse to say that a single
>>individual does something together though. I would say "loi pa nanmu"
>>is legal, but perverse. "loi" needs a group of more than one for the
>>distinction it makes to be relevant.
>

But since we don't know anything about the size of the groups, there is no difference between lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno and loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno !
What does the size of the groups (what groups, by the way?) have to do with the difference between lo and loi? Either they are about two totally different things, men and groups, or they are about different distributivity patterns. Nothing about size, let along knowing about size, is involved

And, of course, about whether it is ok to say "bunch of"and about whether there are generic objects and about intensional contexts. So, actually it looks about the same as usual.

--- Original Message --
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:20:42 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

Well, to ease both our discomforts, I note that we do disagree about whether lo requires a collective reading and about what , if anything, loi etc. mean.

--- Original Message --
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:08:29 PM
Subject: lojban Re: xorlo

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:14 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I think xorxes and I will disagree here: I think that an external
> quantifier forces a distributive reading and it is at least possilbe that
> xorxes does not

I do agree that outer quantifiers are always distributive. Strangely
enough, we seem to be on the same page on practically everything (as
long as generics and intensional contexts don't crop up). This is a
very odd situation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

In a message dated 9/9/2009 09:29:41 Eastern Daylight Time,
kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:

> OK, "arithmetic" in the technical sense, i.e., the theory of the natural
> numbers, from Peano's axioms or Frege's or from set theory by any of
> various routes — or all of the above. West Coast (vs. East) in the 60's seems
> to have been characterized by (among several other points) by starting the
> natural numbers at 0 and by using variable outside the ordering to begin
> with, then switching over to ordinals beginning with 0. "UCLA" is just
> hubris, though that is where most of this stuff was done in those days. But
> Berkeley would do almost as well, even Stanford, but definitely not Harvard or
> Princeton
>
>

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

stevo

On Wednesday 09 September 2009 16:28:57 Squark Rabinovich wrote:
> Suppose I say *loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno .i gi'e dasni lo xunre creka*
> Does it mean the division into groups is the same regarding carrying pianos
> and regarding wearing red shirts?

That gave me an image of three men stuffed into a single gigantic red shirt!
Probably not *while* they carried the piano, but before or after.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Squark Rabinovich wrote:
> What's up with the /gadri/ proposal administratively speaking?

From the 2007 annual meeting minutes
> 1) The following procedures are added to the extant BPFK procedures:
>
> "Any proposal which at least half of the BPFK membership has
> voted on in a tentative vote with none voting against, may be
> submitted by the BPFKJ to the general membership as a possible
> piece of the zasni gafyfantymanri ("interim baseline", herein
> after referred to as the ZG). Such a proposal requires a
> two-thirds majority of those voting to vote in favor of it at
> the general membership meeting in order to pass.
>
> Voting something into the ZG has the following effects:
>
> 1. The proposal will be considered correct Lojban until such a
> time the complete new baseline is established and approved by
> the membership. Usage according to the CLL standard will not be
> considered incorrect, but usage according to the ZG will be
> preferred.
>
> 2. The BPFK will recognize that such a vote indicates a desire
> by the membership for the proposal in question to be included,
> in modified form if necessary, when the new baseline is
> finished. Such a desire will not be considered binding in any
> way.
>
> 3. The membership is encouraged to use the ZG standard in all
> pedagogical contexts, and in all Lojban conversation.
>
> The ZG will last only until the entire new baseline is written
> by the BPFK and approved by the membership."
>
> In addition, xorlo was added to the zasni gafyfantymanri

In other words, more or less, it is "preferred" and quasi-official, but
not final. I suspect that in software terms, it is like being part of a
beta version.

> As far as
> I understand, it goes back at least to 2004. Why haven't it been
> introduced into the grammar reference yet?

Because it is likely that nothing will be introduced into the grammar
reference (i.e there will be no "final" baseline) until ALL of the
pieces are done. This makes sense in that until all the pieces are
done, there could be unknown interactions whose resolution is
complicated by finalizing only part of the grammar.

Unfortunately, most of the people who really care about finalizing the
entire language are burnt out or in a bad stage of life to contribute to
the process.

>Is it still under evaluation,
> and if so, when will it be finally accepted into the language?

For one sense of "accepted into the language" it already is. In another
sense, when the byfy finally finishes the entire baseline (and the
reference grammar is then revised to reflect that baseline).

And unfortunately, for some of us oldtimers who don't really understand
xorlo, "accepted" is a word that may never really apply. xorxes has (at
times at least) said that in actually usage it will seldom make any
difference - that the differences mostly lie in how it is explained or
taught in logical terms. So I will probably continue to use the
language as I know it until/unless someone tells me I am wrong, but I've
stopped trying to be one who attempts to explain the language to others
beyond the rudimentary level.

lojbab

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> And unfortunately, for some of us oldtimers who don't really understand
> xorlo, "accepted" is a word that may never really apply.  xorxes has (at
> times at least) said that in actually usage it will seldom make any
> difference - that the differences mostly lie in how it is explained or
> taught in logical terms.

The pre-xorlo situation was that everybody had their own, different
understanding of how gadri worked. The post-xorlo situation is that
everybody has their own, different understanding of how gadri work. So
there hasn't been any significant change. In actual usage, we seem to
manage somehow. It's the theoretical explanations that get convoluted,
because it's obviously a hard area to pin down in any language.

> So I will probably continue to use the language as
> I know it until/unless someone tells me I am wrong, but I've stopped trying
> to be one who attempts to explain the language to others beyond the
> rudimentary level.

That's wise. After all, the language is what the usage of fluent
speakers says it is, not what the textbooks say. I only wish we had
more opportunities to see some of your own usage.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.