From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 04 23:48:37 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3244 ; Sun, 04 Jun 95 23:48:08 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 02 Jun 95 23:35:44 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa06919; 3 Jun 95 0:35 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0880; Fri, 02 Jun 95 19:33:11 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9227; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 19:33:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:23:17 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 01 Jun 95 17:58:39 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506030035.aa06919@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Jorge: > In any case, I have reconsidered the case of general quantifiers > and I'm now inclined to take your view, which really does seem much > more intuitive. Some examples: > (1) so'i prenu cu klama so'i da > Many people go to many places. > (2) so'i da se klama so'i prenu > Many places are gone to by many people. > What do they mean in Lojban? That depends on how are general > quantifiers to be interpreted. > I thought {re prenu} was to be interpreted as: "There exists > an x that is a person and there exists a y that is a person > and x is not equal to y:" and whatever was claimed was claimed > for x and for y. Me too. > But I think And's interpretation is better: "There is a set > of two persons, such that for every x of that set:" whatever. > (Actually, it has to be supplemented by "and no set of > more than two persons", if the exactness of numbers is to be > preserved.) > This would mean that general quantifiers (almost anything except > {ro} and {su'opa}), really hide one existential and one > universal quantifier, rather than some indefinite number of > existential ones. This causes (1) and (2) to mean different > things. But if they were to mean the same thing, it would > be that each of the many persons goes to each of many places, > which is not the most useful meaning. I of course agree. BUT we must make sure we won't be lacking a simple grammatical means to say: There is a set, X, and there is a set, Y, such that for every V, V in X, and for every W, W in Y, V goes to W. (= your "each of many people goes to each of many places"). I tentatively propose that, slightly contrary to what you suggest, this should be the meaning of > (1) so'i prenu cu klama so'i da > (2) so'i da se klama so'i prenu While "For each of many people there are many places that they go to" should be: sohi lo prenu cu klama sohi da (= ro lo sohi lo prenu) That is, {lo broda} is equivalent not to {suho lo [suho] broda} (or to {da poi broda}) but to {ro lo suho lo [suho] broda}, while {suho broda} is still equivalent to {suho da poi broda}. What do people reckon to this? --- And