From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Sep 19 06:24:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9373 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:52:28 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:24:48 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:24:28 +0100 To: nessus , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Lionel Vidal: #la pc cusku di'e: #> {tu'o}, the "null operand" (nowhere further explained) is used here as a #> vacuous PA. The grammar requires a descriptor or a number here, but the fact #> is that there is always exactly one thing satisfying this description, s= o why #> get involved with all the problems (quantifiers especially) that using a #> regular form involves? # #la xorxes cusku di'e #>{tu'o} is the "quantifier" you use when you don't want a #>quantifier. # #What is then the semantic of {tu'o broda}? If it is used when there is #exactly one thing satisfying the description, why not be explicit #with {lo pa broda}? Reasons: 1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity (e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is=20 counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an=20 extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity! 2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda} does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one broda. {lo'e broda} does not claim that there is exactly one broda, but is an instruction to conceptualize broda as a single-member category. --And.