From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412141706.AA19020@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: plural
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199412140146.AA11309@nfs2.digex.net> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Dec 13, 94 07:33:48 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       2461
Status: RO

> la lojbab cusku di'e
> 
> > No.  I think you are attaching too much significance to default quantifiers,
> > which work like the space-time reference - they are applicable only so far
> > as context demands.

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> Default means that that is the value they have unless otherwise explicitly
> specified. The situation with tenses is different, they don't have any default
> values. (I think some of them should, but that's a different matter.)
> 
> A more valid comparison would be with na/ja'a. If none is given explicitly,
> ja'a is the default one.

I have to agree with Jorge here.  The default quantifiers are in effect
unless overridden, and "le ci nanmu cu bevri le ci mudri" means that each
of the three men carried three logs each.

However, the +specific nature of "le" means that there are at most three
logs operating here: it can't be the case that each man carried a different
group of three logs.

> > I'm not sure where the default quantifiers are on "lei" at the moment - Cowan
> > disagreed with me on what we have said before, I think.
> 
> I hope it ends up as {piroi}. The consequences of {pisu'o} are just too
> horrifying to even consider.  :)
> 
> With {piroi}, {lei broda} is a singular term (singular meaning that it is
> neither universally nor existentially quantified, or rather it is both).
> Singular terms are very good because they commute with everything, you
> don't have to worry about the order of negation and everything else.
> {le broda} is often a singular term too, when it means {le pa broda}.
> 
> With another quantifier, {lei broda} is no longer a singular term, and
> you have to be very careful with the order in which it appears with
> respect to non-singular terms.

The trouble is that under the assumption you want, that properties are not
inherited from part to whole (with which I agree), an assumed "piro"
makes it impossible to say "mi pinxe lei djacu" unless you drank every
single molecule of the in-mind mass.

> > I would say that without explicitly identifying the quantifiers, "le prenu
> > cu tcidu le cukta" does not implicitly imply that each of the people read
> > everyt single word of each book - it suggests it, but does not mandate it.
> 
> Certainly not every single word, unless reading a book implies that.
> But it has to mean that each person read every book.

I agree.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.