Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.169;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 13:59:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Quantifier exactness
From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be06aaf95c104d2a35115
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--f46d043be06aaf95c104d2a35115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The issue of quantifier exactness has come up a few times already. The most
recent example was "context and precision" which was forked by aionys from
another thread. You can look at that thread On IRC today, playing around
with functions we stumbled upon a combination of a sentence and situation
such that one stance on quantifier exactness makes the sentence false while
the other makes it true. Here's the setup:

There are 4 people, mi, do, la alis, la bab; the latter two are grouped
under {lo re prenu}.
I like la alis a little bit, but hate la bab.
You like la alis and la bab a lot.
Now consider
{mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci pa lo re prenu}
(If the ni confuses you, pretend it's ka, as that part's not important
here. We can talk about ka-ni elsewhere.)

If quantifiers are exact, this is true. {do nelci pa lo re prenu} is
completely false (you like *two* of them, not one), while {mi nelci pa lo
re prenu} is true, if only a little bit, so I do exceed you in that aspect.
Note that the CLL says this is how the language works, but if you look at
the previous discussions you'll find that this is clumsy fairly frequently.
If quantifiers are not exact, this is false or at least false-ish, since
{ro da poi me lo re prenu zo'u do zmadu mi lo ni ce'u nelci da}.

I thought this example warranted discussion primarily because it does
*not*arise because of annoying, semi-ontological issues related to the
universe
of discourse. Instead there's only two people being quantified over, but
the two interpretations still differ with respect to this (relatively
simple) sentence.

.i do ma jinvi

.i mi'e la latro'a mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--f46d043be06aaf95c104d2a35115
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The issue of quantifier exactness has come up a few times already. The most=
 recent example was &quot;context and precision&quot; which was forked by a=
ionys from another thread. You can look at that thread On IRC today, playin=
g around with functions we stumbled upon a combination of a sentence and si=
tuation such that one stance on quantifier exactness makes the sentence fal=
se while the other makes it true. Here&#39;s the setup:<br>
<br>There are 4 people, mi, do, la alis, la bab; the latter two are grouped=
 under {lo re prenu}.<br>I like la alis a little bit, but hate la bab.<br>Y=
ou like la alis and la bab a lot.<br>Now consider<br>{mi zmadu do lo ni ce&=
#39;u nelci pa lo re prenu}<br>
(If the ni confuses you, pretend it&#39;s ka, as that part&#39;s not import=
ant here. We can talk about ka-ni elsewhere.)<br><br>If quantifiers are exa=
ct, this is true. {do nelci pa lo re prenu} is completely false (you like <=
i>two</i> of them, not one), while {mi nelci pa lo re prenu} is true, if on=
ly a little bit, so I do exceed you in that aspect. Note that the CLL says =
this is how the language works, but if you look at the previous discussions=
 you&#39;ll find that this is clumsy fairly frequently.<br>
If quantifiers are not exact, this is false or at least false-ish, since {r=
o da poi me lo re prenu zo&#39;u do zmadu mi lo ni ce&#39;u nelci da}.<br><=
br>I thought this example warranted discussion primarily because it does <i=
>not</i> arise because of annoying, semi-ontological issues related to the =
universe of discourse. Instead there&#39;s only two people being quantified=
 over, but the two interpretations still differ with respect to this (relat=
ively simple) sentence.<br>
<br>.i do ma jinvi<br><br>.i mi&#39;e la latro&#39;a mu&#39;o<br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />


--f46d043be06aaf95c104d2a35115--