From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:56:48 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:56:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 94899 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:07 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20010907005005.NZED710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:05 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:22 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMEEKCEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <158.485568.28c2c162@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10492

pc:
> jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
>   {lo'i du'u makau klama le zarci} is the set {tu'o du'u la djan klama
>   le zarci; tu'o du'u la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan e
>   la meris klama le zarci; tu'o du'u la djan enai la meris klama le
>   zarci; noda klama le zarci; ... }
>
> I know that And has come up with some suggestion about what {tu'o} means.

It was Jorge in response to me for the umpteenth time expressing my
annoyance about having to choose a gadri and/or quantifier for inherently
(noncontingently) singleton categories. So that's what I see {tu'o} as
for -- for things that in any possible world there can be only one of.
{tu'o} doesn't solve the annoyance of having to *use* a gadri/quantifier,
but at least it removes the annoyance of having to vacuously *choose* one.

> I have not read it carefully but did not find what I understood of it on skim
> either plausible or even intelligible within the context of standard
> Lojban.
> But then, it is 1) unlikely that anyhting that gets labelled as "null
> operand/non-specific/elliptical number" is going to be intelligible or
> plausible and 2) clear that {tu'o} should have some use or other, vaguel as a
> quantifier.  I just don't understand what And's version is nor how it is
> justified.

See above. I'm not sure which messages you have or haven't read, but
there was agreement that {tu'o} couldn't sensically mean both "null operand"
and "non-specific/elliptical number", and John opined that it should mean
only "null operand". I agree with him.

--And.