Received: from mail-qc0-f188.google.com ([209.85.216.188]:53092)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBCD6T3EC2UIBBJFXVCDQKGQE6F7WFNI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Ts0uR-0004Iu-L0; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:58 -0800
Received: by mail-qc0-f188.google.com with SMTP id k26sf10875512qcs.15
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf
         :mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=v27iTJ2+32+V7sE4BLbn988Fzidu8aEYBfsE1WHSZXI=;
        b=j3hkW45lUbjRhTl1m5SXkAbhHAUyAzvymhWw/64pHYoZhTR/VPGSvPZX3u6k9Zscci
         LC61nuAsS946wX+XOJ9JKgVpusrwVhJcDX+NdcUW+11T92LpNeS5L8hPMlIV3bovY2kT
         wvTEMoI0w0EXiC8VCgqqnlK5qY2gxOBKlQPEVc3e97JGm5bNtPqFwccY+33yCLn0DI2b
         DBbAlRAiVmBt0jCrnC3x+TcxNm5AUwaRB1cDRgRC07jGV1HjSYiDW8/tV1+HORMJlhRI
         xN1GNYKwSn4LPUFrtFc3BZJ/fQyksYds33HvL/Dk/+L7J+jEUBb6SqgWkctP89RLlZ5i
         76GA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf
         :mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=v27iTJ2+32+V7sE4BLbn988Fzidu8aEYBfsE1WHSZXI=;
        b=KyBPM3S4mhwD07nCD91TMRvHj/KsqmVqstoV6WTq1cromNyvZBIFFJZzK3wlz7sRRy
         lp2vj4/v83iLJwp4poS30AsypcjIUKMRVDz8cQVPVOOnJsNO6XoTvMOKjQMCZo5d6ms/
         /oOL7q2cmrzRXL7y2VDBLFiDLBuP1VoK1kO01PvR5dPgblJiTZI23b7LQXEVjofoKe7U
         8Nu9oOYeXjWBqexlWcMm5n3DV0bZkwM3GLpk3v+bwK4OwLsI6mkuQUISQ5LqEp3R8+4K
         hL0G9HgprrYfomzjjRRGNgxh9NpE1eKCWDKEK3OAOOwBYQZZOD5wvPShRW678ISiliS4
         +ZEg==
X-Received: by 10.50.220.231 with SMTP id pz7mr1321520igc.8.1357519780782;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.40.134 with SMTP id x6ls1276103igk.21.canary; Sun, 06 Jan
 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.123.142 with SMTP id s14mr38064079icr.0.1357519780206;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.123.142 with SMTP id s14mr38064078icr.0.1357519780194;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f170.google.com (mail-ia0-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7si403461igl.0.2013.01.06.16.49.40
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.170;
Received: by mail-ia0-f170.google.com with SMTP id i1so15805452iaa.15
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.42.232 with SMTP id r8mr4254827igl.100.1357519780078;
 Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.142.134 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:49:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:49:39 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68qh-sonU4gjYuEQ4iSWvrSgHNoP6bg2RGfX5v8z-hRXkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Quantifier exactness
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.170 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com;       dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

I don't understand what you mean by "inexact quantifers". Do you mean that {pa}
should be understood as {su'o}? I don't see why that is necessary, or why you
would need such a convoluted example to exemplify the different interpretations.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 6 January 2013 15:59, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

-- 
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.