Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA17795 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 02:47:35 +0200 Message-Id: <199601250047.CAA17795@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 8FF0D4A2 ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 1:47:34 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 23:03:12 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: tech:logic matters X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3861 Lines: 86 In message <822426847.6847.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> pcliffje@crl.com writes: > & > > &: But why should {suo no lo ro broda} mean that there are brodas? > > pc: Because the internal _ro_, properly understood, says that there > > are some brodas, even if none of them do whatever the predication goes > > on to claim. > That's what I don't understand. > pc: > Well, the internal quantifier says how big the referred-to set is. In > this case, it has all members. That implies, as "all" does, that it has > some members, i.e., at least one. What is the problem? (This is not > even about restricted quantifiers this time.) (and earlier) > > They are the quantifiers of natural language ... You keep insisting on this, but McCawley doesn't appear to think that it's quite so clear cut. ... while 6.3.4b would probably be interpreted as including members who incurred no bills among those to whom the 10 percent discount is offered: ... 6.3.4 b. Any member who paid all his bills by the fifteenth of the month was entitled to a 10 percent discount on their publications. (I've only dipped into the book, so it's possible he might give the lie to this later, but I don't believe I've quoted totally out of context. He does of course give examples where there is an existential implication, but gives several reasons as to how it might arise, not just from the quantifier itself.) > pc: > Right! So, the standard for Lojban syntax for quantifiers ought to be > _Q broda cu brode_ matching the semantics as closely as feasible. > this form claims there are brodas except for the cases of _no_ and > whatever is the denial of _ro_ (?_ronai_? _nairo_? something else > altogether?). {naku ro} or {da'a su'o} Given that we want to be able to express both "one and all" (universal with existential import) and "any and all" (universal which may be vacuous) in simple forms such as the above, we need a quantifier for each. I previously offered you something like {ro su'o} as an existential- universal to contrast with plain {ro} as a possibly-vacuous universal, but you weren't impressed. You did not however offer me a possibly-vacuous universal in return, except as a circumlocution, which the above seems to indicate you agree is undesirable. I am therefore forced to propose my own, {ro su'o no}, which is not particularly pretty, but I can always hope that usage will eventually establish that a naked {ro} is at least ambiguous between the two possibilities, as it is in English, and preferably that {ro su'o no} is the default interpretation, at least barring pragmatic indications to the contrary. (I have no particular objections to particular constructions such as {ro lo broda} carrying existential import, providing it can be explained in such a way that this is not part of the meaning of {ro}, but arises from the context as a whole, for instance by a default {su'o} inner quantifier. If it could also be explained using your definitions, and still end up with the same meaning, then we might both be satisfied, but I won't hold my breath. In any case, I think we need some explicit quantifiers, such as discussed above, up our sleeves, to override whatever implications might arise from the context.) The other thing that needs to be worked out is how the existential-universal interacts with (bridi) negation. You may consider it to be a trivial exercise for the reader, but it's a significant part of the negation paper, and virtually part of the definition of what {na} and {naku} mean. (I'll try one example just to see how it goes. {naku rosu'o da poi broda zo'u: da brode} <=> {su'o da poi broda zo'u: da na brode .ija ro da zo'u: da na broda}) co'o mi'e .i,n. -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk