From jjllambias@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 13:38:44 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iic8g-00038e-19 for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:38:44 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 4so219893nfv for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6LC5q/uE6RWJcXOz9WJiCpviQJmjbcTXclbYl7xoaaM=; b=UgKGzQLimQwuLnh8lQoPgWbAlDGlQB2G8lbbAv/onVbICGD2XBVl0wSF6SFuTyzrnsckqY+uiof5RWKtYs0b6YkoH/MtqymsGh80P5OPptUXZRNeSaFaOm58E7ZlzJdcY3mNP4kyzDtI/jeSASsultOOziBotNlvs/wJZkSdSX8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DDDXQ7yTGqiRcf80q+6AqlmIxLQFuXTZjBFmNbQwMAqkHTBzPgT2xbabvPaOke5RASp0X2+SxMKhGov25zbiDirjrkQup1YKAzH9ubVufR/RayBhFK4y2E7vAKKzMvcZIad32kD+ZuHlQjHNT0jkqzsIsQ9+ixnooT9fsHVAow0= Received: by 10.86.79.19 with SMTP id c19mr734452fgb.1192739917127; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.86.13 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560710181338j7ed11db3n65b93674b67d41d1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:38:37 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <20071018191715.GA19091@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071016202338.GL5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016213807.GO5630@digitalkingdom.org> <20071016220537.GI28745@mercury.ccil.org> <20071016222008.GK28745@mercury.ccil.org> <4715D3E3.5000003@gmail.com> <20071018132508.GD15126@mercury.ccil.org> <47179EF7.5060902@lojban.org> <20071018191715.GA19091@mercury.ccil.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 453 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/18/07, John Cowan wrote: > Bob LeChevalier scripsit: > > > Sometime between that decision (pre November 1980) and when I started > > documenting Lojban, pc came to the opinion that the internal quantifier > > was su'o rather than ro. I can't be sure that he did so because of > > a change in JCB's thinking, his own thinking, or something I said in > > our discussions (I remember that I attached much significance to the > > symmetry in the quantifiers - "su'o le ro" and "ro lo su'o". (Isn't that backwards?) > The trouble with all this, of course, is that it makes lo's inner > quantifier basically useless: "su'o" just says it can't be empty, but > using an explicit number is almost always the Wrong Thing. That's IIUC > what inspired xorlo. xorlo is much more concerned with the outer quantifiers than the inner ones. The inner quantifier, be it {su'o} or {ro}, is basically harmless (and pointless). Other inner quantifiers do add content, but obviously noone is proposing to have something like {mu} as default. {ro} and {su'o} are harmless and trivial because you are always referring to all the things you are referring to, and if you are referring to something then you are referring to at least one thing. So as long as you don't bring in any extraneous "that actually exist in the real world" or similar stuff, neither {su'o} nor {ro} as inner quantifiers are the least bit problematic. Whatever the explicit inner quantifier is, it is always also {su'o} and also {ro}. The outer quantifiers are the real logical quantifiers, and having anything there can change things fairly dramatically. xorlo takes the view that an unquantified sumti is not, by itself, a quantifier expression. It is simply a referring expression. A logical (i.e. outer) quantifier is a sentence operator, despite the misleading appearance from the syntax that it is only part of a term. It is better not to burden bare sumti with those complications. mu'o mi'e xorxes