Message-Id: <199601242251.RAA21167@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:32:14 -0800
Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      tech:ro broda/ro lo broda
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1027

Colin:

Now my objection to 're xirma' is that a laivla (quantifier word) is being
used as this converter. Clearly it can be made to work because it has been;
but in my view it's a kludge, in large part because it means 're lo xirma' and
 that
'lo' is part of the skeleton of the phrase. (The presence of 'le re xirma'
 complicates the
issue further)
pc:
Semantically or logically (the second-order view of quantifiers) it turns
out that quantifiers and LE and several other creatures all belong to the
same general type of thing (the logicolinguists seem to prefer
"determiner" for this sort).  That may be part of the reason that people
found it so natural (and the more complex _ro lo xirma_ less so).

lojbab
"re broda" is an abbreviation
intended for naturalistic use, and is not intended as a model of logic or
set theory or anything else, but a short cut.
pc:
but turns out to be a rather fundamental point (as its persistence should
have warned us) in the latest view of things (hopefully not too soon
revised).
pc>|83