Return-Path: Message-Id: <9204061923.AA09445@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Mon Apr 6 15:56:42 1992 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: descriptions and quantification X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: <9204040428.AA22485@relay1.UU.NET>; from "CJ FINE" at Apr 3, 92 7:23 pm Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Apr 6 15:56:42 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Colin Fine asks about the semantics of LE and related stuff. I am posting some general information for him and others to mull over. It's a bit summary, I'm afraid -- eventually there will be a paper on the subject. LA, LE These selma'o contain cmavo called descriptors, which corresponds somewhat to the English articles: "the", "a(n)". LA has a slightly less restricted grammar than LE: only members of LA can be found in front of a name. Each LE descriptor has a pair of associated default quantifiers, one "inside" (representing the size of the set described) and one "outside" (representing the size of what the descriptor refers to). LA descriptors do not have "inside" quantifiers, because everything after the LA is part of the name. Thus "la ci cribe" means "that which is named 'Three Bears'" and does not imply that the thing named has three components (it might be a rock group or a restaurant). The table indicates the default quantifiers for each member of LA and LE. There is a general pattern to LA/LE cmavo: the central vowel is "a" for things-named, "e" for things-described-as, and "o" for things-which-really-are. This is followed by: nothing for individual(s), "i" for masses, "'i" for sets, and "'e" for representative individuals (but "la'e" does not fit here and belongs to another selma'o). The distinction between individuals, masses, and sets is an obligatory category of Lojban. Members of LUhI can be used to convert among these types, and members of JOI can assemble sumti of one type into a collective of another type. cmavo quantifiers full English translation la su'o la "at least one of the thing(s) named" lai pisu'o lai "some part of the mass consisting of the thing(s) named" la'i piro la'i "the whole of the set consisting of the thing(s) named" le ro le su'o "all of the at-least-one thing(s) I describe as" lei pisu'o lei su'o "some part of the mass consisting of the at-least-one thing(s) I describe as" le'i piro le'i su'o "the whole of the set consisting of the at-least-one thing(s) I describe as" lo su'o lo ro "at least one of all the things which really are (if any)" loi pisu'o loi ro "some part of the mass consisting of all the things which really are (if any)" lo'i piro lo'i ro "the whole of the set consisting of all the things which really are (if any)" le'e ro le'e su'o "all of the at-least-one thing(s) I stereotype as having the property" lo'e su'o lo'e ro "at least one of all the things which typically are" > INDEFINITE SUMTI > > We are allowed the kludge "quantifier selbri". I take it this means > pre-quantified "lo": > > ci cukta = ci lo cukta > three of the things in the universe which actually is-a-book This is correct. Interestingly, this construct was present in Loglan as long ago as 1960 (in the >Scientific American< article) but then dropped out. It was later reinstated as a concession to natural-language habits, and because it was grammatically safe. > The grammar also allows "quantifier quantifier selbri", eg > ciboi vo cukta > > It is tempting to conclude this means > ci lo vo cukta > 3 of the 4 things in the universe which actually is-a-book > > but that would mean that the [vo cukta] in [ciboi vo cukta] has a > different meaning from a [vo cukta] tout court. This suggests that it > means > ci lo vo lo cukta > 3 out of some 4 of the things ..... This analysis is probably correct. Nobody has ever used one of these double-quantifier constructions; indeed, nobody has used the other construction which Colin quotes above: LE + quantifier + full sumti. > RELATIVE CLAUSES I omit Colin's examples in favor of the following general remarks: Relative clauses may follow many kinds of simple sumti, not just descriptors. The relative clause is therefore outside the scope of the descriptor: le cukta [ku] poi se nelci me the( book ) such-that [it] is-liked by-me may or may not be a book, due to the nature of "le", but it must really be liked by me. Since le do cukta your book is defined as equivalent to: le cukta [ku] pe do the( book ) associated-with you the "do" is in effect outside the descriptor scope also, though physically within it. Lojban "poi" relative clauses always restrict the description truthfully, making le mlatu [ku] poi gerku the "cat" which is-a-dog a reasonable sumti. There is another cmavo, "voi", which is to "poi" as "le" is to "lo"; it makes non-veridical restrictive relative clauses: lo mabru voi finpe a/some mammal(s) which-I-describe-as a-fish perhaps referring to whales. Here the "mabru" is accurate, whereas the "finpe" only refers to what I have in mind. "voi" was introduced at the most recent pass over the cmavo list, and will not appear on most copies. (Historical note: in JL10 p. 39 it was said that "le mi cukta" is identical in meaning to "le cukta po mi". "po" in this case was an error for "pe".) -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban