Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r8Fpe-000071C; Fri, 18 Nov 94 01:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4323; Fri, 18 Nov 94 01:01:46 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4320; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 01:01:47 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3406; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:58:29 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:33:10 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199411160553.AA08128@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:13:02 pm Content-Length: 1855 Lines: 45 la xorxes. cusku di'e > I propose to leave the quantifiers as is, and give {lo'e} a slightly different > interpretation. (Otherwise, it would have to be {ro lo'e pa}, wouldn't it?) Well, no. Remember that the inside quantifier tells how big the set is; its value is independent of the meaning of the gadri chosen. The truth is probably something like "[ro]pa lo'e ro", since we want the archetypical individual which results from considering the entire set of brodas. For "le'e" we get "[ro]pa le'e su'o". BTW, I think that your argument that "lei" (and presumably "lai") want "piro" as the outside quantifier because they are +specific is incorrect. Outside quantifiers for masses (and sets) aren't true quantifiers, they are partitioners (or sumpn like that). I admit that the meaning of outside quantifiers on masses needs to be rethought. > > > So we have {re lo'e remna kakne le nu zutsi le sfofa}, because I'm not > > > restricting it to any special type of remna, just any two. > > > > I would render that as: > > > > ro remna remei kakne le nu ... > > Each human-being pair is able to ... > > > > since it is a universal statement about what pairs of persons can do. > > Yes, but the original "The sofa can seat only two people" is not such a > universal statement. It explicitly limits the number of people that can > sit there. Your statement says that all pairs can sit, but it doesn't > say that a triplet can't. Correct. Nevertheless, I still don't believe in your use of "lo'e". > I think allowing {lo'e} and {le'e} to have quantifiers gives them > a lot of usefulness. I really don't see much use for them as singular > abstractions. Unfortunately, they were introduced into Loglan as such. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.