From: Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>=
To: lojban@googlegrou= ps.com
Sent: Tuesday,= January 8, 2013 5:46 PM
Subject:= Re: [lojban] Quantifier exactness

On 7 January 2013 14:55, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote= :
> I meant a translation of the original statement into English. .u'= u that I
> wasn't clear.
>

That is the point. I have nev= er seen in any other linguistic
expression an object
like lo ni mi ne= lci PA da, as far as I can tell. This is why, in the
attempted translati= on,
the normally ambiguous scope of the natural language quantifier isforced to long.
I have no intuition about lo ni mi nelci PA da, althou= gh I agree with
the axioms that
justify latro'a's reasoning.

m= u'o
mi'e .asiz.

>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Fel= ipe Gon=E7alves Assis
> <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
>>
>> On 7 January 2013 12:01, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> &= gt; On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis
>> &g= t; <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >&g= t;
>> >> What is lacking here is the argument /for/ quantifi= er inexactness,
>> >> which goes against CLL.
>> &g= t;
>> >
>> > Much as I like quantifier exactness as= a useful idiosyncrasy in lojban
>> > (and
>> > vie= w adhering to the CLL) as a good default, I find the example given as
&g= t;> > an
>> > argument /against/ quantifier exactness (th= ough not an entirely
>> > convincing
>> > one by it= self), at least if I take latros's analysis at face value.
>> >
>>
>> I don't see how the example is an argument. I= t is just that, an example.
>>
>> > The sentence says = to me "I, more than you, like one of the two people."
>> > Unle= ss you can give me an intuition for a translation that preserves
>>= ; > exact
>> > quantifier semantics (and just adding "exactl= y" to the previous
>> > statement
>> > doesn't do i= t), I'm going to be uneasy about them.
>> >
>>
>= > "I, more than you, like one of the two people."
>> {da poi me= lo re prenu zo'u mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci da} or
>> {mi zmadu= do lo ni ce'u nelci lo [su'o/pa] me lo re prenu}
>>
>> T= he odd thing with the original example is the quantification within
>= > the ni-clause.
>>
>> mu'o
>> mi'e .asiz.>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group= .
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@google= groups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<= br>>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups= .google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>
>
>
>
&g= t; --
> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
>
> --
> You received thi= s message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" = group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googl= egroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
&= gt; lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For = more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/l= ojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are = subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, s= end email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from= this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.