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

RE: [jboske] RE: What is a lojbanmass? Quantification



At 07:38 PM 1/13/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >I don't know if that's the consensus, but Lojbab persuaded me into
> >this view (!!!).
>
> And, Bob arguing something in logic should be prima facie reason enough to
> dispute it. :-) (Actually, :-| .)

He said he couldn't see the difference and asked me what it was.
If I had seen a difference and explained it to him he would not
have listened, of course, but, unable to rid myself of the mad
notion that sane discussion between him and me is possible, I did
try to answer him and in fact it turned out that I decided I couldn't
see a difference either. Because Bob challenges absolutely everything
I says, occasionally his indiscriminate challenges chance upon a
genuinely ill-founded notion.

Now come, I just counted that you've made over 150 postings so far this month, and I've made around 50, not all in response to you. So unless you contend that you said nothing in 2/3 of your postings (which I doubt), or that I contested multiple postings in one response, it cannot be the case that I challenge absolutely everything you say. %^)


(Nick is now obliged to dispute my logic %^)

> >There are two reasons. The first is that if
> >fractional quantifiers weren't true quantifiers then they would
> >have to be abolished; that is, given the grammatical environments
> >they occur in, they must be true quantifiers.
>
> ..... *or*, they aren't real quantifiers, and they are doing
> something else, as a
> notational convenience. I mean, piro isn't a number; why expect it to
> be a true
> quantifier like a number?

Why isn't piro a number? It looks like one to me.

I hereby declare that I do NOT challenge And on this point, and agree with him %^)


Clearly the idea behind CLL piPA is that you quantify fractionally
over members and bits and then reconstitute the bits into Substance
and the members into Collective. And if CLL made that {loi piPA loi},
it would be easier to find it compositional.

If anyone cares for the history, L1's discussion of quantification can be found at
http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/chap4.html#sec4.22
and the next two sections and the examples translate into Lojban terms quite obviously. piro (TLI pira) is discussed in 4.23, and his "lo" is a merger of our "loi" and "lei". So far as I know, we made no major changes to the concepts of representing quantification that JCB came up with, so CLL piPA shouldn't be too unlike L1's equivalent. JCB was far more cogent than I am on matters logical even if often just as incorrect.


lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org