From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Nov 05 19:29:28 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mrin02.spray.se ([212.78.193.8] helo=mrin02.st1.spray.net)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 189Gsf-0001vM-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:25 -0800
Received: from lmin06.st1.spray.net (unknown [212.78.202.106])
	by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3152241999
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed,  6 Nov 2002 04:28:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-63.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.63])
	by lmin06.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7178F27D2C
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed,  6 Nov 2002 04:28:51 +0100 (MET)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e =? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:30:41 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAECNGNAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 2444
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:42:39PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> [...]
> > But it gets worse. According to Nick Nicholas, in a recent email to me:
> > 
> > > zo'e = su'o de
> > >
> > > ro bangu cu selfi'i zo'e = ro da poi bangu; su'o de zo'u: da selfinti de
> > > (This is read as there being a possibly distinct de for each da)
> > >
> > > zo'e finti ro bangu = su'o de; ro da poi bangu zo'u: de finti da
> > > (This is read as there being at least one de inventing all da)
> 
> This is definitely *not* book lojban (unless it's hiding somewhere),
> whether or not jboskepre agree on it 
> 
> zo'e == "implied value".  This means it can mean things which don't
> claim existence, such as "lo'e pavyseljirna" or "lo'i cridrdrakone"
> (ok; well on that last I guess it depends on whether ro is importing,
> no? -- imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as
> lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is
> empty, since the inner quantifier is ro.  Also I gather that
> nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as
> well).  This isn't the same as "su'o de" ("de") because it doesn't
> involve an existential quantifier 

The book is quite clear that ro as a quantifier is importing (16.8,
as pc has just pointed out on Jboske). Like you, my preference
would have been for nonimporting ro, but I can't see any grounds
for overriding the book -- it's not inconsistent or 'broken' on
this point. 

However, the so-called "inner quantifier" functions as an indicator
of cardinality. I don't see why a set of cardinality ro has to be
a set of cardinality su'o. This is a subject of ongoing debate on
Jboske.

As for whether zo'e claims existence, "lo'e pavyseljirna" is held
to be a possible value for da, since the universe of things
can include imaginaries. The view has always been that zo'e
entails da, because any sumti bar {no da} and {zi'o} entail da.
As you say:
> The only restrictions the book places on what zo'e can represent is
> that zo'e can't stand for "noda" and it can't stand for "zi'o" 

--And.