Message-Id: <m0sysEt-0000ZSC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 29 Sep 1995 23:04:26 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: quantifiers and existence
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1236
Lines: 37

djer:
> If "re broda" is equivalent to "re lo ro broda", then "lo re broda" is
> equivalent to "lo re lo ro broda".

What I've tried to tell you is that the "re broda" part inside the
{lo re broda} is not at all like a stand alone {re broda}. If you don't
accept that, then we will never agree about this.

> Is this really necessary to say
> 2 broda?

No it isn't, and furthemore, it doesn't say that. {lo re broda} says
at least one broda -- not two broda -- of the two that there are.

> If we are going to create monstrous idomatic expressions in
> lojban, I don't think the quantifier scheme is the place to do it.

What monstrous idiomatic expressions? The standard {lo}-sumti is of the form:

(1)     Q1 lo Q2 broda

Q1 is the quantifier. If not explicit, then it is {su'o}.
Q2 is the cardinality. If not explicit, then it is {ro}.

There is also the shorthand form:

(2)     Q1 broda

where {lo} is omitted, and the cardinality Q2 cannot be made explicit.

But notice that in this short form, the quantifier Q1 is a real quantifier,
not just a cardinality like the Q2 of "Q1 lo Q2 broda".

The Q1 of expression (2) is _not_ in any way equivalent to the Q2 of
expression (1). It is equivalent to the Q1 of expression (1).

Jorge