Message-Id: <199511232150.QAA23772@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:40:23 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: misc. responses to And
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

And:
> Dylan:
> > But I'm not sure I really understand And's argument.  I'd like
> > to see some explicit examples of meaningless statements using PA.
> Jorge came out with a good list last year. The other day John
> offered {suo ro suo}. Let that do for starters.

That's not such a good example, because it is meaningful.

{su'o ro} (at least all) is the same as {ro} (all).

When you have two (full) quantifiers, one next to the other, they
both apply, so {ro su'o broda} is "each/at least one broda}, i.e.
universal with existential import.

I conclude this by extending what the MEX paper says:

>> Another possibility is that of combining definite and indefinite numbers into
>> a single number.  This usage implies that the two kinds of numbers have the
>> same value in the given context:
>>
>> 8.18)        mi viska le rore gerku
>>              I saw the all-of/two dogs.
>>              I saw both dogs.
>>
>> 8.19)        mi speni so'ici prenu
>>              I am-married-to many/three persons.
>>              I am married to three persons (which is "many" in the circumstances).

Jorge