Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:46:17 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199411190646.AA20336@access1.digex.net>
Subject: Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 19 01:46:21 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

\LL>> I think allowing {lo'e} and {le'e} to have quantifiers gives them
LL>> a lot of usefulness. I really don't see much use for them as singular
LL>> abstractions.
LL>
LL>Unfortunately, they were introduced into Loglan as such.

Actually, only one of the two was introduced into Loglan in any way, and I 
don't recall what it meant.  It was back in TL2, in any case.  Also neither
has seen significant use, and we should define them so as to be useful - my 
reason for choosing the outer-su'o for "lo" over the TLI Loglan "ro".

LL>la xorxes. cusku di'e
LL>
LL>> I propose to leave the quantifiers as is, and give {lo'e} a slightly diffe
LL>> interpretation. (Otherwise, it would have to be {ro lo'e pa}, wouldn't it?
LL>
LL>Well, no.  Remember that the inside quantifier tells how big the set is;
LL>its value is independent of the meaning of the gadri chosen.  The truth
LL>is probably something like "[ro]pa lo'e ro", since we want the archetypical
LL>individual which results from considering the entire set of brodas.

What the inside quantifier is is really quite meaningless - you have claimed that the "typical" of "lo'e" is an abstraction that need not exist (but on the
other hand it may exist in large numbers if you are talking about lo'e [clone]).
I would agree that "ro" is a sutiable inside quantifier since however many
there are, "all" is that number, and there may be zero.

I think that our discussion of how to deal with imaginary universes is
applicable to this, then.  If I wish to make the claim about two typical
people being able to sit on a couch, then I am for purposes of discussion
conjuring up a universe where two such typical people exist.  After all,
the typical unicorn DOES have a horn %^).
LL>BTW, I think that your argument that "lei" (and presumably "lai") want
LL>"piro" as the outside quantifier because they are +specific is incorrect.
LL>--More--
LL>Outside quantifiers for masses (and sets) aren't true quantifiers, they are
LL>partitioners (or sumpn like that).
LL>
LL>I admit that the meaning of outside quantifiers on masses needs to be
LL>rethought.

Not having the original message in front of me, I believe that I HAVE said that
the outer quantifier on "lei" is "piro", because that is what usage indicates
(it also fit my sense of symmetry).  "lei" is typically used to refer to
tema action that iks not true of the individuals separately: (the two men
carried the log across the field being the classic Loglan example - you would 
NOT make this English statement if one person did the carrying while the 
other watched from the sidelines).

lojbab