From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Nov 4 22:28:36 1994 Message-Id: <199411050328.AA06558@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Fri Nov 4 22:28:36 1994 From: Gerald Koenig Subject: lo, transparency Status: RO Some parts to the puzzle are: Variable predicates: Equivalent forms are in each column. The exponent is the number of arguments (sumpti). The subscript is an identifier for each predicate word. These are the bare predicates without sumpti and are not sentences. Are we mistakenly using "broda" for the last, general form? Do we even have a word for it? >From the gismu list: broda rod predicate var 1 x1 is the 1st assignable variable predicate ad 134 (cf. cmavo list bu'a) 1 2 5 m (standard notation A A A ..... A for predicates in 1 2 3 n predicate calculus) broda brode brodi (lojban) is_fact thirsts goes (example) fatci taske klama (example) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predicate variables: x y z da de di Predicate variables range over constants. Maybe over full sentences in lojban predicates that call for abstractions in x2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Logical constants: a b c Andy Bronwyn Charles Names d that book on the table singular description ____________________________________________________________________________ Quantifiers: Quantifiers operate on predicate variables, not on variable predicates. All(x) For all (x). ro da E(x) There exists at least one x. su'o da N(x) Number of (x). i.e. no da. lojban only? n To me, su'o broda means " E(x) A " or E(x)P which is an 1 incomplete sentence, or not a wff. It is like saying; At least one something exists, such that person. It should read E(x)P(x); At least one something exists, such that it is a person. .i su'o ti prenu, would be an example. An assertion, ti prenu, corresponds to P(x). .i su'o ti broda, works. su'o broda seems incomplete. Following pc, but maybe not with full understanding, "lo broda" means a/the broda or "one P" or even "any one P", on first use. Thereafter it means the same particular one as the first time used. I would say there is also an existence claim for the thing it describes or points to. So it is doing double duty as a descriptor and a quantifier. The quantifier is "one", contrary to the current default of su'o, at least one. The "one" default could be modifed by saying: lo re broda, or lo su'o broda etc. The default lo would be specific or singular and the optional explicit greater-than-one kind would be non-specific or general. Examples of this usage: .i mi nitcu lo tanxe singular, opaque I need a real box. .i mi nitcu lo su'o tanxe general, opaque I need some real boxes. .i mi nitcu lo ci tanxe general, opaque I need three real boxes. .i mi pencu lo tanxe singular, transparant I touch a real box. .i mi pencu lo su'o tanxe general, transparant I touch some real boxes. .i mi pencu lo ci tanxe general, transparant I touch three real boxes. These sentences parse. It is a matter of convention what lo tanxe is to mean. In declaring all the "nitcu, need" cases opaque I just followed Quine. But he could be wrong. For instance, in a context of two people looking at and talking about one box; where, as pc says, the a/the meaning of lo has progressed to the "the", " mi nitcu lo tanxe" certainly seems transparent. What other box would they be talking about? What is opaque is still murky to me. The above is my effort to understand. I hope it can be helpful. An affirmation: We now bring a higher level of clarity and precision to lojban. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- jlk@netcom.com