Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <34331450-8689-5c39-2e45-991095de8e8a@gmx.de>
References: <3cb1fc04-c3d0-3535-099e-30b8b120f219@gmx.de> <CAO7tK2dvRVjJCqBwSFv4rQFx19+=-5hWdm2ZwYS3=qvFMeMAng@mail.gmail.com>
 <34331450-8689-5c39-2e45-991095de8e8a@gmx.de>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:08:36 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fikZ4+kd3=oFrocaR=Q2bbyPq4qWwuE84qWN2qTdzd0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06cb8ec21096053e778f9e
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

--94eb2c06cb8ec21096053e778f9e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:23 PM, selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

>
> What I really want is for the existential quantifier to become distinct
> from the "at least n" operator. In my preferred version of cekitauj (the
> cmavo swap dialects) the existential quantifier is spelled {su} and the "at
> least" operator is spelled {su'o}. This split is not possible in official
> Lojban, unfortunately, but it would keep the symmetry intact.
>

That makes sense. One difference with the singular version is that plural
"su'e" (and plural "me'i") will have existential import: "su'e re no tadni
cu sruri lo dinju" with plural "su'ereno" would mean "there are some
students, who are at most twenty, surrounding the building".

How do we say the old singular "su'e mu broda cu brode" (which allows the
possibility that "no broda cu brode") with the new system?


> Would "no" become "no'oi" as well?
>>
>
> Yes, I believe it must and should.
>

And singular "no" is then "no pa", right?


> {so'e jbopre cu banka'e lo .inglico} ("Most Lojbanists speak English")
> cannot be expanded like a normal numerically quantified statement:
>
>    ? su'oi da poi jbopre gi'e so'e mei cu banka'e lo .inglico
>      "Some xx that are Lojbanists and most in number speak English." [1]
>
> Quantifiers like {so'e}, {so'a}, ..., so-called proportional quantifiers,
> require there to be something they are proportional to. The number of broda
> in e.g. {so'e broda cu brode} is compared to the number of (all) broda that
> brode. "Out of all the Lojbanists, most of them speak English."
>
> So I would say that
>
>    ru'o da poi jbopre zo'u so'e de poi menre da cu banka'e lo .inglico
>    "All [the] Lojbanists taken together are such that most of them speak
> English."
>
> is a better (intermediate) expansion. (Getting rid of {so'e} entirely is
> possible, but I'm too lazy to type it out. The proportion is >0.5)
>

I think the expansion should be:

 PA broda cu brode -> su'oi da poi PA mei lo broda cu brode

which I think would work for all the numeric quantifiers:
[da'a][su'o|su'e|me'i|za'u|ji'i] n; so'V; du'e, mo'a, rau; and also for
ru'o.

But {me'i} and {za'u} can be considered prefixes. I had thought {me'i PA
> da} would mean {su'oi da poi me'i PA mei}. A definition in terms of {ru'o}
> would also be possible, but I'm not sure that it would be better. It would
> mean allowing prefixes (like "<" and ">") to turn non-{ru'o} numerical
> quantifiers into {ru'o}-type quantifiers, and this requires a good
> justification.
>

What do you mean by non-ru'o numerical quantifiers? su'oi, ro'oi, no'oi,
me'oi are non-ru'o, in the sense that they don't expand to a "su'oi da poi
PA mei" form. (I don't even know what "PA mei" would mean for them.)

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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--94eb2c06cb8ec21096053e778f9e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:23 PM, selpahi <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br></span>
What I really want is for the existential quantifier to become distinct fro=
m the &quot;at least n&quot; operator. In my preferred version of cekitauj =
(the cmavo swap dialects) the existential quantifier is spelled {su} and th=
e &quot;at least&quot; operator is spelled {su&#39;o}. This split is not po=
ssible in official Lojban, unfortunately, but it would keep the symmetry in=
tact.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That makes sense. One difference =
with the singular version is that plural &quot;su&#39;e&quot; (and plural &=
quot;me&#39;i&quot;) will have existential import: &quot;su&#39;e re no tad=
ni cu sruri lo dinju&quot; with plural &quot;su&#39;ereno&quot; would mean =
&quot;there are some students, who are at most twenty, surrounding the buil=
ding&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>How do we say the old singular &=
quot;su&#39;e mu broda cu brode&quot; (which allows the possibility that &q=
uot;no broda cu brode&quot;) with the new system?</div><div>=C2=A0</div><di=
v><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"=
">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Would &quot;no&quot; become &quot;no&#39;oi&quot; as well?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Yes, I believe it must and should.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And =
singular &quot;no&quot; is then &quot;no pa&quot;, right?</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">{so&#39;e jbopre cu bank=
a&#39;e lo .inglico} (&quot;Most Lojbanists speak English&quot;) cannot be =
expanded like a normal numerically quantified statement:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0? su&#39;oi da poi jbopre gi&#39;e so&#39;e mei cu banka&#39;e=
 lo .inglico<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;Some xx that are Lojbanists and most in number sp=
eak English.&quot; [1]<br>
<br>
Quantifiers like {so&#39;e}, {so&#39;a}, ..., so-called proportional quanti=
fiers, require there to be something they are proportional to. The number o=
f broda in e.g. {so&#39;e broda cu brode} is compared to the number of (all=
) broda that brode. &quot;Out of all the Lojbanists, most of them speak Eng=
lish.&quot;<br>
<br>
So I would say that<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0ru&#39;o da poi jbopre zo&#39;u so&#39;e de poi menre da cu ba=
nka&#39;e lo .inglico<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;All [the] Lojbanists taken together are such that most o=
f them speak English.&quot;<br>
<br>
is a better (intermediate) expansion. (Getting rid of {so&#39;e} entirely i=
s possible, but I&#39;m too lazy to type it out. The proportion is &gt;0.5)=
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the expansion should be:</div>=
<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0PA broda cu brode -&gt; su&#39;oi da poi PA mei l=
o broda cu brode</div><div><br></div><div>which I think would work for all =
the numeric quantifiers: [da&#39;a][su&#39;o|su&#39;e|me&#39;i|za&#39;u|ji&=
#39;i] n; so&#39;V; du&#39;e, mo&#39;a, rau; and also for ru&#39;o.</div><d=
iv><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;b=
order-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But {me&#39;i} and {za&#39;u} can be considered prefixes. I had thought {me=
&#39;i PA da} would mean {su&#39;oi da poi me&#39;i PA mei}. A definition i=
n terms of {ru&#39;o} would also be possible, but I&#39;m not sure that it =
would be better. It would mean allowing prefixes (like &quot;&lt;&quot; and=
 &quot;&gt;&quot;) to turn non-{ru&#39;o} numerical quantifiers into {ru=
9;o}-type quantifiers, and this requires a good justification.<br></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>What do you mean by non-ru&#39;o numerical quantifi=
ers? su&#39;oi, ro&#39;oi, no&#39;oi, me&#39;oi are non-ru&#39;o, in the se=
nse that they don&#39;t expand to a &quot;su&#39;oi da poi PA mei&quot; for=
m. (I don&#39;t even know what &quot;PA mei&quot; would mean for them.)</di=
v><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--94eb2c06cb8ec21096053e778f9e--