Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000312155128.00b89e70@127.0.0.1>
To: lojban@onelist.com
In-Reply-To: <20000312203852.30639.qmail@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:06:36 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Mass/Set
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 3419
Lines: 80

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>

At 12:38 PM 03/12/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la lojbab cusku di'e
> >Implicit quantifier su'o normally means "one" but could be "part of one" in
> >some circumstances.
>
>This is a new rule!!! I don't agree with it.

We're dealing with the meaning of a "default" quantifier.  I think most 
defaults have exceptions.  The exception is not a new rule per se.  "su'o" 
means "at least some" with a normal "default" interpretation of "at least 
one", but I am sure there are exceptions where that default makes no sense.

Lojban is a quantification-optional language, and if you do not explicitly 
specify the  quantifier, you could get anything.  The default is simply the 
most general value that fits the most cases and can therefore be assumed if 
there is no contextual information otherwise.

Just the same, Lojban is tense-optional, but we have a story-timer 
convention that when applied leads to a "default tense".  That not all 
sentences abide by story time should not be taken as a new rule.

> >Let us say that I spot someone's head far away
> >sticking above an obstruction.  I would say "I see someone"; "mi viska lo
> >prenu" even though what I saw was far less than a person
>
>But it would be true only if there really was a person there.
>If the head turned out to be just a head you would have to
>admit that you had not seen a person after all.

Since we are being grisly, I suspect that if I found a person's head in the 
woods, I indeed report to the police that "there is a body in the woods", 
and would not be called a liar if the rest of the body was not there.

>This is a property of {viska}. The x2 is never fully
>exposed to the eyes of x1.

I think that this is a property of most objects with most predicates, which 
is why I consider that it is not the property of the predicate.  After all, 
is it "me" that viska(s), or is it my eyes, or my eyes, optic nerve and 
brain, but then my heart had a role in supplying needed blood ..., but my 
little toe had nothing to do with the seeing.

>  Normally only one side
>of x2 can be detected by x1, and only the surface
>of x2 at that, hardly ever the interior. And often
>clothed or partly covered. There is nothing in {viska}
>that requires you to detect every particle of x2 in
>order to claim that you see a person, but there must
>be a person there if you want to claim that what you
>see is a person.

Which is implied by "lo", not by viska.  If I had said "le prenu" there 
would be no problem.

> >To clearly say you ate the
> >whole apple, you can say piropa or piro le pa lo plise.
>
>Or {lo mulno plise}.

I look for a non-tanru approach when trying to be less ambiguous.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:  http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 
0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2121/1/_/17627/_/952895389/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com