Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tIjNs-0000ZUC; Thu, 23 Nov 95 23:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 2DECCE83 ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:40:40 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:40:23 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: misc. responses to And X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1101 Lines: 30 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