Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
	<5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
	<52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
	<a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:54:27 -0200
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@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=e89a8f839e6f1a6ab304f1d73282
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--e89a8f839e6f1a6ab304f1d73282
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:58 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If you use the term "constant" as of the version with plural quantifiers,
> you should mention it in the gadri page, and also you should explain how
> Lojban treats plural quantifiers. Otherwise I don't understand how a
> constant implies no implicit quantifier.
>


There's a pretty long explanation of what I meant by constant there
already, I think it's clear that a plural constant is meant:

   - Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a *constant*, i.e.
   not a quantified term. This means that it *refers* to one or more
   individuals, and changing the order in which the constant term appears with
   respect to a negation or with respect to a quantified term will not change
   the meaning of the sentence. A constant is something that always keeps the
   same referent or referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas.

As for plural quantifiers, I once proposed "su'oi", "ro'oi", "no'oi" and
"me'oi".

this means that the sentence "any term without an explicit outer quantifier
>>> is a constant" automatically implicates an outer quantifier {su'o},
>>>
>>
>> It shouldn't implicate that. "F{c} -> Ex F(x)" does not mean that "F(c)"
>> and "Ex F(x)" have the same meaning, nor that "c" is just a shorthand for
>> "Ex ...x...". Similarly xorlo says that "lo broda" is not just shorthand
>> for "su'o lo broda".
>>
>>
> I did not mean that "F(c)" and "Ex F(x)" have the same meaning, nor that
> "c" is just a shorthand for "Ex ...x...".
> When F(c) is said, it says implicitly that "Ex F(x)" is true.
>

If c is singular, yes. That's not what I mean by implicit hidden quantifier
though. All I mean is that saying "lo broda" is not just another way of
saying "su'o lo broda" nor "[some quantifier] lo broda".


> and it contradicts to xorlo itself that there are no default quantifiers.
>>>
>>
>> Not just no default quantifiers. No implicit hidden quantifiers at all,
>> The point is that "lo broda" is not a quantification of the bridi it
>> appears in, the way "su'o lo broda" is.
>>
>
>
> I agree to that point, and I consider that F(c) implies implicit hidden
> quantifiers, and conclude that it contradicts xorlo.
>

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--e89a8f839e6f1a6ab304f1d73282
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:58 PM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.kantu@gmail.co=
m</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div><div>If you use the t=
erm &quot;constant&quot; as of the version with plural quantifiers, you sho=
uld mention it in the gadri page, and also you should explain how Lojban tr=
eats plural quantifiers. Otherwise I don&#39;t understand how a constant im=
plies no implicit quantifier.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>There&#39;s a p=
retty long explanation of what I meant by constant there already, I think i=
t&#39;s clear that a plural constant is meant:</div><div><ul style=3D"color=
:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height=
:18px">
<li>Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a=A0<strong>constant</=
strong>, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it=A0<strong>refers</s=
trong>=A0to one or more individuals, and changing the order in which the co=
nstant term appears with respect to a negation or with respect to a quantif=
ied term will not change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is somethi=
ng that always keeps the same referent or referents. For example {lo broda}=
 always refers to brodas.=A0</li>
</ul><p style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font=
-size:12px;line-height:18px">As for plural quantifiers, I once proposed &qu=
ot;su&#39;oi&quot;, &quot;ro&#39;oi&quot;, &quot;no&#39;oi&quot; and &quot;=
me&#39;oi&quot;.=A0</p>
</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bord=
er-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"im"><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-le=
ft-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left=
-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>this means that the sentence &quot;any term without a=
n explicit outer quantifier is a constant&quot; automatically implicates an=
 outer quantifier {su&#39;o},</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>

It shouldn&#39;t implicate that. &quot;F{c} -&gt; Ex F(x)&quot; does not me=
an that &quot;F(c)&quot; and &quot;Ex F(x)&quot; have the same meaning, nor=
 that &quot;c&quot; is just a shorthand for &quot;Ex ...x...&quot;. Similar=
ly xorlo says that &quot;lo broda&quot; is not just shorthand for &quot;su&=
#39;o lo broda&quot;.<br>

</div><div>=A0</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>I did not mea=
n that &quot;F(c)&quot; and &quot;Ex F(x)&quot; have the same meaning, nor =
that &quot;c&quot; is just a shorthand for &quot;Ex ...x...&quot;.</div>
<div>When F(c) is said, it says implicitly that &quot;Ex F(x)&quot; is true=
.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If c is singular, yes. That&#=
39;s not what I mean by implicit hidden quantifier though. All I mean is th=
at saying &quot;lo broda&quot; is not just another way of saying &quot;su&#=
39;o lo broda&quot; nor &quot;[some quantifier] lo broda&quot;.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,2=
04);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"im">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-widt=
h:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>and it contradicts to xorlo itself that there are no =
default quantifiers.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not just no default quantifiers. No =
implicit hidden quantifiers at all, The point is that &quot;lo broda&quot; =
is not a quantification of the bridi it appears in, the way &quot;su&#39;o =
lo broda&quot; is.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div>I a=
gree to that point, and I consider that F(c) implies implicit hidden quanti=
fiers, and conclude that it contradicts xorlo.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Sorry, I don&#39;t understand what you mean by that.=A0=
</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div>=A0</div></div=
></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--e89a8f839e6f1a6ab304f1d73282--