From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 08 21:49:19 1995 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3304 ; Thu, 08 Jun 95 21:49:09 BST Received: from punt.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 08 Jun 95 09:21:57 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt.demon.co.uk id aa05155; 8 Jun 95 10:21 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa18129; 8 Jun 95 2:51 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5873; Wed, 07 Jun 95 21:49:26 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5581; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 21:32:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:32:07 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: masses, quantifiers, and ko'a X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506080251.aa18129@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R > >To be consistent, {do} should always be a mass (because mi'o, ma'a, etc. > >are defined as masses, not individuals), and the proper way of saying > >"each of you" and "two of you" should be {ro lu'a do} and {re lu'a do}. > > Not generally a problem, since masses are quantified in fractions, and > generally indefinite ones at that, while individuals are quantified in > units. It's not really a problem for {do}, true, but in general the quantifier is not enough. {re lo gunma} have to be two masses, not two individual components of {lo gunma}. > >So what does this mean: > > > > so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da > > Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/ > > those that bite?/those with teeth?) > > It means someone is trying to come up with a difficult case that is hard > to understand, and has succeeded. > > I start with using instead of that final "da": > ri = themselves (respectively or distributively is a bit ambiguous) Respectively in my opinion. That is, if {ri} can refer back to {da}. I think {ri} should refer back to any sumti whatever, but that's not the canon. > ra = those with teeth > ru = dogs How do you get these to be different? There is only one sumti in the first sentence. > It seems that if you are using quantifiers on previous "da"s, you need > to explicitly use one here. If you had said "ije so'i da batci so'u da" > Cowan's rule would have been clear that you were subselecting from the > biters. Actually, Cowan's rule would say that you subselect from the indentured ones, but I would prefer that it be from the biters. But you can't use any quantifier to get the "themselves" meaning. > Therefore "ije so'i da batci so'a da", though causing a > double-take, must be a similar subselection, and "ije so'i da batci ro > da" means that each of the biters bite each of the biters". That's not what John said. > Since unquantified "da" is so ambiguous as to quantification in this > situation, I have no problem with assuming it to result in "themselves". The whole point of {da} is its multiple use after one quantifier, the problems arise when it is quantified more than once. In that case, I think the {da} should be bound to the last quantification, not the first. This is because you can't be expected to memorize all previous appearances of {da}. You should be able to figure it out from the most recent. > Perhaps the proper question is to ask pc what he would do to a logic > student who used the corresponding notational structure in a logic paper > %^) (or at least how he would interpret what that student had written). I suppose he wouldn't admit two quantifications of the same variable, which is what is causing the problem here. > And if his answer is that it would not be considered good logical form > for any of your selections, then that should be your answer. Use of > "da" in my book should match up pretty well with logical notation. Then you should not allow subselections. I don't think we really need to be so strict, as long as we have a clear rule for what it means to quantify an already quantified variable and how are new appaerances of the variable bound. Jorge