From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 06 17:50:07 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 May 2006 17:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcXT3-0002Jm-BJ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:49:49 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.226]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcXT0-0002Je-7r for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:49:49 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i34so767497wra for ; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MMXRNRkaWjyjevbDYCM8uzQQGuwbl1L3rV4PMhyYIinVVWTBwcl9LpetOIK/T8Uqg0t3/rBobQUIh8ijzCs6KMSKEC2k7i/cBo65Zlu8Al9tNl6X6MlNJrWelR/UILZADgrc/YKA7gQSlA6fRAJsx5m7OhY8dNqrrA2wDL7+j48= Received: by 10.65.253.4 with SMTP id f4mr426603qbs; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.218.2 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2006 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:49:43 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Usage of lo and le In-Reply-To: <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605051356y14c8bc45xf602f0e8189b1d5e@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051745m294b69c7m645ccc5cf61d037f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605051949x4e9558c7oa69d3c999bc17680@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605060934q5a2b6172t6f3826feae787599@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605061531j68fc5d28h65b798fa9eda5703@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11420 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/6/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/6/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > {ro lo cribe cu citka ro lo ro jbari pe mi} - "(some specific) bears > > > > ate (, specifically,) all my berries" > > > > > > "Each bear eats each of all my berries" > > > > Yes. But by my definition, it would not mean "Each bear of all bears > > ate...", but rather "Each bear of some number of bears ate...". I'm > > not sure which you meant. > > Neither. I meant just "each bear eats ...". x Because lo is used. > "Each of all bears" would have > to be {ro lo ro cribe} and "each of some bears" would have to be > {ro lo su'o cribe}. {lo} by itself does not contain any hidden {ro} or > {su'o}. > > > > Two questions before I can give a better explanation: > > > > > > > > What is the difference between {ro lo ro cribe} and {ro le ro cribe} > > > > by your definition? > > > > > > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears > > > ro le ro cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm > > > talking about) > > > > This is expressed better by: > > > > ro lo ro cribe = each of all bears > > ro lo cribe = each of all the bears (i.e. each of the bears I'm talking about) > > For the second one I only get "each bear". What kind of each are you talking about? "each bear" is ambiguous, not generic, I would think. > > ro lo ci cribe = each of the three bears (i.e. each of the three bears > > I'm talking about) > > I get "each of three bears", not necessarily about specific bears. I think that it is about specific bears. What, if not specific bears, could you be talking about when you say {lo ci cribe}? Non-specific bears? In my view, non-specific is better expressed as {ci lo ro cribe}. I you previously said that (with the focus on bears, and not berries): {ro lo ci cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "Each of three bears eats all my berries." {ci lo ro cribe cu citka lo ro jbari pe mi} - "of all bears, there are exactly three such that each of them eats all my berries." When you say "exactly three", I don't think that you mean /only/ three ({po'o}). And if not that, then "exactly" seems unneccisary. Is it? And so, what is the difference between: {ro lo ci cribe} {ci lo ro cribe} Consider that it may be: [unspecific subset of] lo [a specific 'set' of bears that I'm thinking of] ("set" may not be the same as the lojbanic set.) > > Just don't default the inner quantifier, or let context override the > > default (and if context overrides the default, then just don't default > > it). Or is there some reason that the inner quantifier is being > > defaulted? I think that this defaulting is an artifact from when {lo > > ci} meant that there were three in the universe, and is no longer > > appropriate. > > Where am I defaulting the inner quentifier? On the contrary, I am > not introducing any quantifiers that are not made explicit. > > The paradigm goes something like this: > > lo: converts a selbri into a sumti > le: lo + specificity > loi: lo + nondistributivity > lei: lo + specificity + nondistributivity > > Footnote: The feature of specificity brings with it a relaxation on the need > to take the selbri meaning as veridical, moving towards the extreme of > names where reference is all that survives and meaning is discarded. This > is only a footnote! It should not be taken as the definitory property of > {le}, which is specificity. > > No quantifiers, inner or outer, are implicit. This is good, but I was hoping that it would immediately illustrate my point. > > > > How would you say "I mean every last bear in the universe", keeping in > > > > mind that {le pa cribe} would not say anything about the amount of > > > > bears in the universe? > > > > > > ro cribe poi zasti bu'u lo munje = each bear that exists in the universe > > > > Heh, yes indeed, though it was not what I was expecting. Would {lo ro > > cribe}, qualified by time (and space?) work also? > > For bringing images about the whole universe? I don't think so. > I don't think {lo ro bear} is any more precise than "all bears" in English. Yes, "all bears" is what I meant, I just wanted to be explicit that I meant "all bears", and not "all of some bears that I have in mind" or anything like that. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.