From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411291631.AA00735@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: small universe consequences Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 11:31:39 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411232052.AA05732@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 23, 94 08:39:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1265 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 29 11:31:59 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > My understanding is that "zohe" is an existentially quantified variable > which is specified only as being an instance of a maximally unrestricted > category - that is, the sentence "gerku" means "zohe gerku zohe" which > means "Ex Ey: x a dog of species y". No, that is "da gerku de". "zo'e" is not necessarily existentially quantified; its quantification has to be glorked from context. > But "zohe" doesn't make the bridi true: what makes it true is the > existence of some x and some y such that x is a dog and y is its species. That is the most probable interpretation, I suppose; but not the only possible one. In plain fact, sentences with explicit or implicit "zo'e" can't be logically transformed with perfect reliability: one must employ the context to provide explicit values for the "zo'e"s. > I would call my version of it a grammar rule. The rule of zohe insertion, > and its semantics, are rules of grammar. There has been a tendency in the Loglan Project to use "grammar rule" to mean only "one of the PS rules which define the language's surface structure." I believe this tendency is at the root of the misunderstanding. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.