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.