Message-Id: <199509220051.UAA24206@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:21:37 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

pc:
> > Not having followed the argument that led up to this "ro broda" proposal,
> > can you summarize for me what the alternatives are, and which one you are
> > proposing.  And if this applies to ci broda identically.
> > Specifically, I am curious as to what "ro lo broda" means under the current
> > argument, so I know why you are calling it the "odd notion" interpretation
> > of "ro broda".
> > lojbab
> The argument goes that we have somehow gotten to the point where  _ro da
> poi broda_ = _ro lo broda_ = _ro broda_ and,

That is my impression too.

> since the first of these is given as having existential import,

This is contrary to my impression. I recall at least Jorge, Iain,
John opining the contrary, i.e. that none have existential import.
I think I recall Lojbab saying that {ro (lo) broda} has existential
import but {ro da poi broda} doesnAt.

The way to get existential import is {ro (lo) suo broda} (with {lo}
obligatory if IainAs equivalent (see below) is correct. For the {da}
version, I donAt know how itAs done.

Even if I am right, I am not opposing a reversal-by-edict of the
status quo. I am simply doubting whether the status quo is as
you say it is.

> iain:
> If your question is how to say it in Lojban, my preferred solution
> at the moment would be an explicit {ro}
>        ro ci nanmu cu rapypencu ro ci gerku
> which would be equivalent to
>        ro lo ci lo nanmu cu rapypencu ro lo ci lo gerku
> pc:
> Oh drat! Is that first one legal? I thought I got shot down earlier for
> trying something like those collapses of  QLQLQ sequences.  And since
> I really don't understand double  descriptors (partly because of that
> earlier shoot down) I am not sure whether this works.  I do hope so, so
> that Lojban can say this, but I do wish I could see the interpretation
> rule here.

The second means oeach of three men...o. The first means
othere are exactly three men, each of whom...o - at least this is what
Jorge & I think the current rules say, though we both prefer IainAs
equivalence.

> How is this related to _le ci lo nanmu cu  rapypencu le ci lo
> gerku_, which I can figure out how it might mean what is wanted (if it
> is legal)?

That means oa certain three out of some men...o, othere is an x-some of
men, a certain three members of which...o.

As for how many dogs there are in any of these examples, that is something
that is so far undecided, and requires a fiat from somewhere on high.

---
And