From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:26:27 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3502 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:26:24 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 07:42:05 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa18213; 21 Jun 95 8:41 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5789; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:39:07 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2464; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:38:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:38:05 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: pa remna X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210841.aa18213@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >> This bothers me. I haven't thought it out thoroughly, but perhaps it is >> desireable to have "pa remna" = "pa lo remna" be a subselection from >> remna which makes no claim about other members of remna. > >That's what {su'opa} is for, isn't it? You are saying that you want >numbers to behave as in English and not be the exact number but a lower >limit. > >> This would be >> a distinct difference from having "lo remna" = "da poi remna". > >I don't understand this conclusion. I am not saying how I "want" numbers to behave in Lojban. I am saying that such behavior is a plausible reason to distinguish "lo" from "da poi". The intent was that "lo" be veridical and talk about real properties. The intent was not that it be logically analyzable into a bound variable like "da poi" is. If it is USEFUL (and consistent with usage), I have no objection to "lo" interacting with quantifiers differently (in logical terms) than "da poi" We thus have a canonical sentence le jubme cu se tuple vo da The table is belegged by exactly 4 things. We don't *have* to say that le jubme cu se tuple ci lo tuple violates the first sentence. Because there probably has been very little usage that forces the issue. I am not saying I am in favor of such a view. I am saying that if it solves some of the open issues, and also conveniently comes up with a distinction between "lo" and "da poi" (since it grates on me to have them equated) I could be convinced to support it. And: >> >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. >> >But I think And's interpretation is better: "There is a set of two >> >persons, such that for every x of that set:" whatever. >> This sounds exactly like "ro lo re prenu". > >{ro lo re prenu} means {lohi prenu} is a remei, doesn't it? > >I had been saying to Jorge that many intuitive uses of {re prenu} in >fact meant {ro lo re lo prenu}, so that it might be better to have {re >[lo] prenu} interpreted as {ro lo re lo prenu} and {lo prenu} as {ro lo >suo lo prenu}. My error - I had meant ro lo re lo prenu. I could live with re prenu meaning "ro lo re lo prenu", I think. or maybe even "ro le re lo prenu" a specific but veridical twosome. The question is whether we want "re prenu" to be specific/definite or not. "ro lo re lo prenu" is quite non-specific/non-definite. >> > ci remna cu se tuple re tuple >> > 3 people have 2 legs? >> > vs. >> > re tuple cu tuple ci remna >> > 2 legs are legs for 3 people? >> >> First, doesn't the current goatleg ruling mean that these both mean >> "there are exactly three people and exactly two legs such that >> each leg is leg of each person"? So (a) both mean the same thing, >> and (b) both are false. > >They both mean that under one interpretation. I don't want to call it >the traditional interpretation because I'm not sure anyone ever gave >this rule. There is nothing about this in the grammar papers. The goatleg rule is clear in the case of quantifier+da-series. Nothing is solid with "quantifier+lo" till we decide (and agree) what "lo" means. Right now, every posting I read that mentions the word "lo" feels like quicksand. And when you or Jorge try to put things in logical form, which I am far from adept at comprehending (especially with 2 kids playing noisy computer games in the room with me), the morass gets even stickier. lojbab