From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411172033.AA27114@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:33:10 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411160553.AA08128@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:13:02 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: 1831 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 17 15:33:28 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab 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.