Message-Id: <m0qoCZU-00001DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 23 Sep 1994 10:46:39 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Analogy
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199409230129.AA24383@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at
              Sep 22, 94 08:08:22 pm
Content-Length: 2989
Lines: 82

la rendl. xolmyz. cusku di'e

> > So what is the official line?  Does it coincide with the interpretation
> > using implicit quantification or does it reverse it?  If it reverses it,
> > I really do suggest that you change it.

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> If it had been decided, there probably would be an example in the
> connectives paper, so I suppose the issue had not come up before.
> I agree that the order you propose seems best, but how do you handle
> cases like:
>
>         da prami la djan e la djeimyz
>         Someone loves John and James
>
>         la djan e la djeimyz se prami da
>         John and James are loved by someone

There is as yet no "official" line, or it would be in the reference grammar.
I do recognize the problem, but I haven't worked out what the answer should
be.  When I get the chance, I'll review all the comments on this (and
the other pending questions): right now, I've been suddenly swamped at work
after a long fallow period.

Jorge, it is already the case that conversion with SE can change meanings
in the presence of quantified variables, since variables are quantified
in the order of surface appearance:

1)      ro prenu cu prami pa finpe
        all persons love one fish

and

2)      pa finpe cu se prami ro prenu
        one fish is-loved-by all persons

are equivalent respectively to

3)      ro da poi prenu pa de poi finpe zo'u da prami de
        for-all x's which are-persons, there-is-one y which is-a-fish,
                such-that x loves y

and

4)      pa de poi finpe ro da poi prenu zo'u de se prami da
        there-is-one y which is-a-fish for-all x's which are-persons such-that
                y is-loved-by x

and the latter is equivalent in turn to:

5)      pa de poi finpe ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami de

which is not equivalent to Ex. 3, so Ex. 1 and 2 are not equivalent either.
This will be explained properly in the predicate logic paper.

(TLI) Loglan translations for Randall:

"cusku" = "cutse".  "di'e" has no exact equivalent, but belongs to the
same family as your "toa" and "toi", but refers futureward; in English,
"the following remark".

1)      ra pernu ga cluva ne ficli
2)      ne ficli ga nu cluva ra pernu
3)      ra ba jio pernu ne be jio ficli goi ba cluva be
4)      ne be jio ficli ra ba jio pernu goi be nu cluva ba
5)      ne be jio ficli ra ba jio pernu goi ba cluva be

On your name:  Lojban has no "h", but "x" is the usual alternative;
"x" is a full-fledged Lojban consonant.  "mz" is a forbidden consonant
cluster, as it is easily confused with "nz" (at least, that is the official
rationale -- I don't consider this rule very well motivated), so I inserted
a "y" hyphen.

> Do you propose that they have different meanings? I think that in
> Lojban they both mean the same thing.

I don't know the answer, but there is no >a priori< reason why they should.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.