From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 22:44:41 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:20:19 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4108; Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:17:17 EST Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 9179; Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:17:03 EST Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:00:34 GMT Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: RE: TECH: goat's legs; quantification and restriction X-To: lojbab@grebyn.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 10 22:00:34 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: Let's walk and talk. Let's take the only example I've so far managed to track down in the published literature. It's on page 17 of the "Diagrammed Summary". re tavla cu klama Two [of the unspecified number who are] talkers go. Does this mean that there are exactly two talkers who go? Perhaps it does, but only in a very restricted sense. There's a lot left unspecified in this bridi, including several sumti places, and the tense information. THIS IS NOT A UNIVERSAL STATEMENT. This does NOT say that out of the set of talkers, anywhere, at any time, there are exactly two who satisfy the predicate "go". It says that there are two who talk about something ... who also go somewhere ... at some unspecified time. So what does this imply for our poor goat's little legs? lo'e kanba cu se tuple reda ri'u ri The typical goat is be-legged by two things *on his right* If I omit the spatial qualification, then I'm just being vague. I'm not telling you where the two legs I'm talking about are. But why should lo'e kanba cu se tuple reda be interpreted as a _universal_, any more than {re tavla cu klama}? mi'e .i,n.