Message-Id: <m0sS9Z4-0000YjC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 1 Jul 1995 16:53:10 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: ci stedu,
              and a new dumb idea on quantifiers for people to tear up
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4075
Lines: 105

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I have not to
> my knowledge ever used "lo", "loi" or "le" in ways where implicit
> quantifiers caused logical trouble.

Probably true, because in 95% of sentences (to give some number,
I have no idea of the true percentage) scope is irrelevant. If
{le broda} refers to one individual (as it usually does) you can
shuffle it around and nothing changes. If there are only {lo}'s
and no {ro} that refer to more than one, the same thing happens,
all orderings give the same meaning. If you have a single non-trivial
sumti, it doesn't matter where it goes relative to the trivial ones.
All this fuss is about very special sentences, when many non-trivial
quantifiers are involved. In most cases, you can ignore it and be
quite safe.

> This suggests to me that when we
> use implicit quantifiers, we are avoiding logical precision.  Because of
> my old biases about "lo" in addition, I have presumed that its logical
> scope was somewhat ambiguous.  "lo" has been for me a more natlang-like
> usage than "da poi" and may thus lead to logical imprecision.

That is also true. We tend to use {lo} as just "a/an" and not think
about the logics of it. It works in most cases, but I doubt that we
want to make that the rule.

> "mi penmi ze simxu mensi" says that I
> meet some 7 sisters in a particular (underspecified) event, and not that
> in all my life there are only 7 sisters that I meet.

Right. That one is no problem, because there is a single quantifier whose
scope matters. {mi} is a singular term and causes no problem at all.

> ro remna cu se stedu pa stedu
>
> seems to mean either that every human has the same head, or that every
> human has one head, depending on whether quantifier order is based on
> sumti order or not.

Exactly. I understand it to mean that each human has exactly one head,
not necessarily the same one. The sumti number rule would say that
the same head is head of every human.

> Another possibility might be that indefinite descriptions, and maybe
> even quantified lo descriptions, need to be treated as singular
> collectives for scope purpose, even when the number is plural.  This
> makes indefinites more like masses

That would make them exactly like masses! What would be the difference?

> ("ci broda" = "piro lei ci da poi
> broda" XOR maybe "pa lo broda cimei" - not sure what the difference
> would be)

The first one is a singular term, there is only one {lei ci broda},
the one that I have in mind. The second is just one of all possible
{broda cimei}, there are many broda triplets.

> Given this
> ci remna cu citka mu zumri
> and
> mu zumri cu se citka ci remna
>
> both say that there are 5 ears of maize in this event collectively
> downed by 3 men.

That could also be said as {lu'o ci remna cu citka lu'o mu zumri}, and
indeed it is the same as {lu'o mu zumri cu se citka lu'o ci remna}.

> To get the alternate quantification, you need to say
> ro lo ci lo remna cu citka mu zumri
> mu zumri cu se citka ro lo ci lo remna
> Each of the 3 men separately downed 5 ears of corn.

That's interesting. There is no direct gadri to say {lu'o mu zumri}.
Are you proposing that {mu zumri} be that? I think I would be in
favour.

> ro lo ci lo remna cu citka ro lo mu lo zumri
> means that each of the 5 ears of corn are eaten by each of the 5 men (yecch!)
> and the conversion would mean the same.

That is how I understand it now, so no disagreement there.

> ci lo broda might be defined the same as ci broda, implying a collective.

I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. Why not keep the individual
option as well?

> Advantages of all this:
>
> 1) It reduces all explicit quantifiers on lo/indefinites to either
> "pa/piro" or "ro" as the outermost quantifier, which I think removes the
> scope/order question.

Not completely. I hope you agree that {ro lo prenu cu prami lo prenu} means
something different than {lo prenu cu se prami ro lo prenu}.

> 2) I think it follows the goat leg convention.

I don't think that's much of a problem. With any interpretation this
is an separate issue.

Jorge