Message-Id: <m0sOKcy-0000YjC@xiron>
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:38:05 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      pa remna
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3563
Lines: 84

>> 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