Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:09:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711151909.OAA17462@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more' X-To: cbogart@quetzal.com X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, bob@rattlesnake.com To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <01BCF1B8.FE39AB40@usr1q04m3.datamarkets.com.ar> (message from Chris Bogart on Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:21:51 -0300) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4674 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 15 14:09:51 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Chris Bogart said: My sense of English logic doesn't make a distinction between 'see' and 'like' for these sentences, so I can't comment. Well, I am trying to get at the effects of this distinction as well as the effect of {lo}. Basically, I am saying both that {viska} and {nelci} behave differently with arguments and also that that in some circumstances lo mlatu does not transform into da poi mlatu some, one or more, cats x, such that x is a cat as some people are presuming. Put another way, we are *not* negating "I like one or more cats" as Lee Crocker suggested. We are negating a sentence with a different meaning than "one or more" (albeit, in some circumstances "one or more" is a good translation). Clearly: .i naku zo'u mi viska lo mlatu It is false that I can see one or more cats ==> I cannot see any cats. There is no argument about this. This is evidence of a context in which staightforward presumptions work. But the issue at hand concerns a quite different case: It is false that I like some, one or more, cats =?=> I do not like any cats. In this case, the phrase `some, one or more cats' is a gloss for {lo} we have a procedure to discovering some number of real cats out of all those that are real, the number being at least one, but maybe more, and not necessarily all, with both the number and particular cats being left unspecified. So the question is, does the phrase: It is false that I like some number of, not necessarily all, cats =?=> I do not like any cats. I think the answer is clearly no. This answer comes about because of a difference between `see' and `like' that effects how logic works in the context of {lo}. In the case of `see', {viska}, the seen entities, the x2, are substitutable, such that a characteristic true of any one (such as being seen) has consequences for all the others. .i naku zo'u mi viska lo mlatu It is false that I see some, one or more, cats means: I do not see any But in the case of `likes', {nelci}, the liked entities, the x2, are independent, such that a characteristic true of one (such as being liked) does not necessarily have consequences for all the others. Besides revolving around the relationship between {viska} and {nelci} and their arguments, this question revolves around the meaning of {lo}. I know there is a tendency to handle {lo} so sentences come out as examples of textbook logic. But as far as I can see, for .i naku zo'u mi nelci lo mlatu It is false that I like some, one or more, cats to truthfully imply I do not like any cats. the `veridicality operator' {lo} must each and every time identify *all* things-which-really-are cats, not just some non-specific and non-particular one or more of them. Otherwise, I can like some and non-like some. This is quite different from the consequences of {lo} as a `veridicality operator' when we are making utterances involving {viska}, `see'. In this latter case, any thing-which-really-is a cat enables the logic to work as in a text book example. {lo} need only identify one cat for one or more cats to be seen. English translations of {lo}: at least one ... one or more ... one or more of all the things which really is or are ... at least one of all of those which really are ... some number, at least one, but perhaps more, of all real ... some, at least one ... Chris Bogart goes on to say: ... all your translations of {lo} seem OK to me. The problem is that they have different senses, to you, in English, but the same logical meaning in Lojban. You're taking the glosses too seriously. I agree with you in that I think all these translations of {lo} are OK. On the other hand, I understand some people to be saying that only one of these glosses is OK, namely `at least one ...'. That we both agree is false. In particular, I understand you to be saying that we both agree that it is false to transform: lo mlatu da poi mlatu some, one or more, cats =/=> x, such that x is a cat Ex | cat(x) Since this transformation is false, the logical conclusions that depend on it are false. Hence, I conclude that in utterances with {lo}, the logic is more sensitive to context and more complex than a first look would suggest. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725