From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Mar 10 08:55:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 64390 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.51) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:55:24 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2002 16:55:24.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F4F38C0:01C1C854] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13600 la pycyn cusku di'e >In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of >fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent >coourse through that. I propose we take as fundamental our common ground: A- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode A+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode E- [ganai da broda gi] node zo'u ge de broda gi de brode E+ ge da broda gi node zo'u ge de broda gi de brode I- ganai da broda gi su'ode zo'u ge de broda gi de brode I+ [ge da broda gi] su'ode zo'u ge de broda gi de brode O- ganai da broda gi me'irode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode O+ [ge da broda gi] me'irode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode There is no possible misinterpretation of those. Also these are common ground: roda = noda naku = naku me'iroda = naku su'oda naku noda = roda naku = naku su'oda = naku me'iroda naku su'oda = me'iroda naku = naku noda = naku roda naku me'iroda = su'oda naku = naku roda = naku noda naku We can use those to write everything in terms of {ro} only: A- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode A+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode E- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode E+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode I- ganai da broda ginai rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode I+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode O- ganai da broda ginai rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode O+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode Now we have to decide whether {ro da poi broda cu brode} will mean {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} or {ge da broda gi ro de zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode}. Obviously it is much simpler to use the first, because then we have: A- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu brode A+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode E- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu naku brode E+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu naku brode I- ganai da broda ginai rode poi broda cu naku brode I+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode poi broda cu naku brode O- ganai da broda ginai rode poi broda cu brode O+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode poi broda cu brode If you make the other choice, you will have a lot of trouble to make the conversion for all of them. Probably it can't even be done. The same argument can be made writing everything in terms of {su'o}, or in terms of {no}, or in terms of {me'iro}. We can now use the same conversion table to write each one back with its cannonical quantifier: A- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu brode A+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode E- [ganai da broda gi] node poi broda cu brode E+ ge da broda gi node poi broda cu brode I- ganai da broda gi su'ode poi broda cu brode I+ [ge da broda gi] su'ode poi broda cu brode O- ganai da broda gi me'irode poi broda cu brode O+ [ge da broda gi] me'irode poi broda cu brode Now we have to decide whether we want {ro broda cu brode} to be short for {roda poi broda cu brode} or for {ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode}. Again, if we choose the first, we get from the all-ro forms: A- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda cu brode A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode E- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda naku brode E+ ge da broda gi ro broda naku brode I- ganai da broda ginai ro broda naku brode I+ [ge da broda gi] naku ro broda naku brode O- ganai da broda ginai ro broda cu brode O+ [ge da broda gi] naku ro broda cu brode If we follow the same process by writing everything in terms of each of the quantifiers, and taking {Q broda cu brode} to be short for {Q da poi broda cu brode} we get the forms: A- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda cu brode A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode E- [ganai da broda gi] no broda cu brode E+ ge da broda gi no broda cu brode I- ganai da broda gi su'o broda cu brode I+ [ge da broda gi] su'o broda cu brode O- ganai da broda gi me'iro broda cu brode O+ [ge da broda gi] me'iro broda cu brode as well as the equivalences: ro broda = no broda naku = naku me'iro broda = naku su'o broda naku no broda = ro broda naku = naku su'o broda = naku me'iro broda naku su'o broda = me'iro broda naku = naku no broda = naku ro broda naku me'iro broda = su'o broda naku = naku ro broda = naku no broda naku So far we have said nothing about inner quantifiers, and indeed we don't need to say anything about them. We know that {Q broda} can also be written as {Q lo ro broda}, but that doesn't change anything in what we've done. All we have had to define so far is {ro da poi broda cu brode} as {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} and {Q broda} as {Q da poi broda}. I don't think you can get a simpler system. Now we can use the particular "inner quantifier" quirk to simplify these: A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode E+ ge da broda gi no broda cu brode I- ganai da broda gi su'o broda cu brode O- ganai da broda gi me'iro broda cu brode into: A+ ro lo su'o broda cu brode E+ no lo su'o broda cu brode I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode but this is really a marginal matter and not really central to the system. We should not get distracted by this in deciding the main issue: what are {ro da poi broda cu brode} and {ro broda}. It seems to me that the system I presented is the most Lojbanic if we accept the common ground forms as fundamental. If we don't start from those, we get into particular people's intuitions about what "all" means and so forth, and I see no point in going that way. It's highly subjective and the forms and relationships obtained are much more complex. >But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of >meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce. Indeed. So can Llamban at least be granted "peripheral dialect of Lojban" status? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com