Message-Id: <m0r7bNI-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:13:02 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2706
Lines: 72

la djan cusku di'e
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
>
> > The sumti paper says that {su'o lo'e ro} is the default quantifier of
 {lo'e}.
> > If it doesn't make sense, I guess it should be fixed.
>
> Maybe it should be fixed.  What do you propose?

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?)

> > I prefer to think of {lo'e} as the opaque gadri, especially since it seems
> > that {xe'e} won't be accepted. And maybe {le'e} would be the opaque gadri
> > with in-mind restrictions. When Santa says that he needs a box, but not any
> > will do, he has a 'type' of box in mind, but not a particular box.
>
> I don't believe that "lo'e" is a generalized opaque gadri (or "le'e" either),
> because they refer to abstractions, not to real instances.

Opaque sumti would also not refer to real instances.

> {lo'e tirxe} is
> neither male nor female, even though all real {tirxe} are either male or
 female.

With my interpretation, {lo'e tirxe} is still neither male nor female.


> > 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.

> > But {la santas
> > nitcu le'e tanxe}, because he needs a certain type of box, not any old box
> > whatsoever.
>
> I render this as:
>
>         la santas. nitcu tu'a lo tanxe sa'enai
>         la santas. nitcu le nu da poi tanxe sa'enai zo'u da co'e
>         Santa requires the event-of (there-exists-X which is-a-box (loosely)
>                 such-that X has-some-property)
>
> where "sa'enai" tells us that although the referent of "da" is unquestionably
> a "tanxe", there are unexpressed restrictions.  Note that in Lojban
 "looseness"
> can move either toward extension (the box isn't really a box) or toward
> restriction (the box is a special unmentioned type of box).  If you don't like
> this use of "sa'enai", you can say:
>
>         la santas. nitcu tu'a lo co'e tanxe
>         Santa needs the obvious kind of box.

Yes, I don't disagree with using {tu'a}, but it is very vague.

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.

Jorge