From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 13 12:24:10 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DhuXR-00056W-QO
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:24:01 -0700
Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DhuXO-00056N-4O
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:24:01 -0700
Received: (qmail 44649 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jun 2005 19:23:56 -0000
Message-ID: <20050613192356.44647.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:56 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Un-definite quantifier.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <925d17560506131154393cda2b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10158
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list



--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/13/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > {lo broda} without quantifiers behaves just
> as
> > > {le broda}
> > > withouth quantifiers, and indeed like any
> other
> > > sumti without
> > > quantifiers.
> > 
> > If this is true, then the meaning of {le} has
> > changed even more radically than that of {lo}
> --
> > and now defintely to the dtriment of
> > expressibility in Lojban.  This may actually
> have
> > happened since I have seen {le broda} equated
> > with {lo "broda"}, as though accurate
> description
> > were the significant difference.
> 
> The significant difference is specificity. 


Which, of course, does not come through with the
above cited equivalence.  That is the only point
of this case, except to notice yet again that
theoretical semantic procedures are radically
different, which is the point of the rest of the
discussion on my part.  

> {le namcu} "the number(s) I have in mind".
> {le pavyseljirna} "the unicorn(s) I have in
> mind".
> {le gerku} "the dog(s) I have in mind".
> 
> {lo namcu} "number(s)"
> {lo pavyseljirna} "unicorn(s)"
> {lo gerku} "dog(s)"
> 
> The difference doesn't affect how they behave
> vis-a-vis
> quantification, which is the same in all cases:
> 
>  PA <sumti> = PA da poi ke'a me <sumti>

That the trivial rewrite rules are unchanged is
uninteresting unless the way these rules are
confirmed are unchanged. (I hope that you are not
suggesting this identity constitutes and
explanation of what the expression means.  If so,
notice that {me} becomes ambiguous -- or
incedibly vague -- in the process, rednerin the
explanation empty.)   As it happens, with
quantifiers they do indeed come to the same
thing, because {PA (lo) broda} is semantically so
different from {lo broda}, while {PA le broda}
and {le broda} are semantically the same at base.