From lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx Fri Nov 26 11:30:40 1999 X-Digest-Num: 294 Message-ID: <44114.294.1597.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:30:40 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-From_: rmcivor@macsrule.com Thu Nov 25 14:52:08 1999 >X-Sender: rmcivor@m3.sprynet.com >Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:50:56 -0500 >To: lojbab@lojban.org, jcowan@reutershealth.com >From: "Robert A. McIvor" >Subject: Three Dogs, Two Men > >Hi, > I posed the problem recently discussed in the lojban list, with the >following result. I do not know enough Lojban grammar to know if the >interpretations are different enough that the problems posed by some >contributors to your list were real. In any event, you may post this to >your list if you wish (I discover I do not have posting privileges and have >made no attempt to acquire such). Anyway, I would be pleased to have your >comments. > >This is what I wrote to JCB: > ><to how to render "Each of three dogs individually bit each of two men once" > I gather these are identifiable men and dogs. The E is quite clear, but >there has been some dispute about the Lojban version.>> > >The L seems also to me to be quite clear: > >Le te kangu pa ditka le to mrenu nena. >(Each of) The three dogs bit (each of) the two men exactly once. > >.................... > >1. Le te kangu pa ditka le to mrenu nena. > The three dogs bit the two men at one time. > >says what we want here because it explicitates as follows: > >2. Ra le te kangu pa ditka ra le to mrenu nena. >3. Raba jie leu te kangu, pa ditka rabe jie leu to mrenu, na nebo. >4. Raba jie leu te kangu, rabe jie leu to mrenu, nebo goi, ba pa ditka be >nabo. > >the last being the fully quantified form that translates into logician's >English as follows: > >4' For every x that is a member of the set of three men I have in mind >paired with every y that is a member of the set of two dogs I have in mind >there is exactly one z such that x bit y at time z. > >We suspect that this works because, if we shift the nebo term into *first* >place in the prenex quantifier, we get, by the L rules of implicitation, >the alternative meaning of the E sentence: > >5' There is exactly one z such that for every x that is a member of the set >of three men I have in mind paired with every y that is a member of the set >of two dogs I have in mind, x bit y at time z. > >That is, all the bitings--including the two bites made by each dog!--take >place at one time. In progressively more implicit L, this becomes: > >5. Nebo, raba jie leu te kangu, rabe jie leu to mrenu goi, ba pa ditka be >nabo. >6. Na nebo, raba jie leu te kangu pa ditka rabe jie leu to mrenu. >7. Nena, le te kangu pa ditka le to mrenu. > At one time, the three dogs bit the two men. > >Thus, in implicit form, L word order makes all the difference. > >Jelhaisto! >Hue Djim > >Jelhaisto, >Hue Bab >(rmcivor@macsrule.com) > ---- lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** 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: see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ " Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.