From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue May 30 23:59:37 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3176 ; Tue, 30 May 95 23:59:34 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 30 May 95 01:15:43 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa16929; 30 May 95 2:15 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5384; Mon, 29 May 95 21:13:09 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1335; Mon, 29 May 1995 21:13:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 21:16:21 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505300215.aa16929@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > The inner quantifier is {ro} unless it's changed, no? By putting in > {su'o}, you explicitly say it's not "the one and only set", but some > piece of that set. For {lo}, the inner quantifier is always {ro}. If you say {lo ci broda}, you are saying that three broda are all the broda there are. (See example 7.7 of the sumti paper.) I think it is the same for {lo'i}, so {lo'i su'o broda} is the set of all broda, and you are saying that "all" are at least one, i.e. it is not an empty set. So {lo'i [ro] broda} and {lo'i su'o broda} refer to the same set, but in the second case you are also saying that it is not the empty set. > > But you never encounter {lo'e remna}. Or rather, you can't conclude > > anything about {lo'e} remna from properties of the one you encounter. > > ... > > Yes, this is quite true, but not relevant. And's point is that the > properties of {lo'e remna}, unlike the properties of {lo'i} or {loi}, > are of the same type as the properties of {lo remna}; The properties of {loi remna} are of the same type as those of {lo remna}. > in particular, > since practically all {remna} have exactly one {stedu}, it should be > true that {pa da stedu lo'e remna}. Remember, it's a myopic singular. > (And yes, {da} would probably be {lo'e stedu}, but you don't need to > specify it.) If that were so, then you couldn't say {ti e ta stedu lo'e remna}, because only one thing could be a {stedu lo'e remna} and the usefulness of {lo'e} decreases dramatically. I think the best way to think about it is that {ta stedu lo'e remna} is not at all a predication about {lo'e remna}, but only about {ta}. It is as if {lo'e remna} makes {stedu} into a one-place predicate "x1 is a human head", and all you say is that {ta} fits that predicate. > Huh? How else would you say "x1 has exactly one head"? I didn't express myself clearly. {ta se stedu pa da} means "that has exactly one thing as head". But there is another possible 1-place predicate "x1 is one-headed" (or whatever) that is not a relationship between two objects but only a property of one. Say {pavselstedu} is that predicate, then you can say {lo'e remna cu pavselstedu}, but you can't say {lo'e remna cu se stedu pa da}, because there are more than one thing that are in relationship {stedu} with {lo'e remna}. > > How do you like {lo'e reno plise}? > > {ta tanxe lo'e reno plise} sounds to me like it's a box that can hold > twenty different apples (not necessarily at the same time), rather > than a typical mass of twenty apples. Is this a silly interpretation? Actually, I think you may be right. (After holding twenty apples, the box self-destructs.) Ok, so it's {ta tanxe lo'e plise renomei}. > > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > co'o mi'e xorxes