From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed May 31 00:00:44 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3191 ; Wed, 31 May 95 00:00:42 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 30 May 95 17:15:57 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa15118; 30 May 95 18:13 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8986; Tue, 30 May 95 13:10:30 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8960; Tue, 30 May 1995 12:41:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 12:40:57 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: Lojban List To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: <199505292116.RAA08700@locke.ccil.org> from "Dylan P. Thurston" at May 29, 95 04:51:08 pm Message-ID: <9505301813.aa15118@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la xorxes. cusku di'e > > Well, not really. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think {lo'i} works > > like {lo}, that means "the set of all boxes, of which there are at > > least one". The inner quantifier of {lo'i} is always equivalent to {ro}. 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. No. An inner quantifier with a lo-series descriptor (lo, loi, lo'i, lo'e) is an incidental comment on the size of the (veridical) set. So saying "lo'i su'o tanxe" is the same as "lo'i ro tanxe", given that at least one box exists. It's only in the le-series (and the la-series, which follows the same semantic rules) that inner quantifiers do in-mind subselection. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.