From pycyn@aol.com Thu Mar 14 13:25:49 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 21:25:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 31720 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 21:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 21:25:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 21:25:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.d0.23ccc07a (3981) for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:28 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d0.23ccc07a.29c26f48_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13730 --part1_d0.23ccc07a.29c26f48_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/14/2002 2:50:12 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > > >< > > > ro broda su'o brode cu brodi > > > = no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi > > > > >I forget what my system is supposed by you to be. > > The one you have been advocating: + for the {Q broda} > forms and - for the {Q da poi broda} forms. > Oh, that one! But I ditched that a couple of days ago (I lose track of how long because of the high rate of messages). I actually meant, what arrangement of + and - among AEIO. <>But in any case, I don't >quite follow the identity you propose: You're right, I meant to start with {ro broda ro brode cu brodi}. Sorry about that> 'Sall right. You still haven't made enough of that kind of mistake to catch up with me. Interesting. That is a useful thing to notice. What it means in terms of the system I am currently proposing is that the import condition, whichever it is (but usually + ) is a presupposition, that is goes on the front of the sentence after all the other operations are done -- hence the ease of moving negations arount -- the move only in the matrix, not the prefix. Yes, &'s comments on that seem to me totally compelling (and it is the system I wanted originally anyhow). The equation has to ahve &'s caveats, though: if {Q broda} is a {Q da poi broda}, but not conversely. But, if both are possible, they are equivalent. I've found a couple of other places that use "restricted quantification" in this way, still mainly as a translation device (for which it works rather well, I find as I play with it -- shortens some steps in the procedure). What I call "restricted quantification" still occurs with that name, but more of it seems to be under "many-sorted" or "many-sortal quantification." When I started using the term, 30 years ago or so, the situation was different, because no one was using "restricted quantification" in the currently popular (apparently) way. --part1_d0.23ccc07a.29c26f48_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/14/2002 2:50:12 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

> ><
> > ro broda su'o brode cu brodi
> > = no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi >
>
>I forget what my system is supposed by you to be.

The one you have been advocating: + for the {Q broda}
forms and - for the {Q da poi broda} forms.

Oh, that one! But I ditched that a couple of days ago (I lose track of how long because of the high rate of messages). I actually meant, what arrangement of + and - among AEIO.

<>But in any case, I don't
>quite follow the identity you propose:

You're right, I meant to start with {ro broda ro brode
cu brodi}. Sorry about that>

'Sall right. You still haven't made enough of that kind of mistake to catch up with me.

<The universal/particular, positive/negative characteristics
can be changed while we retain the meaning of the sentence.
The import cannot be changed. That's why I asked what you
meant by "actual quantifier". There is no fixed quantifier
for a given meaning, but there is a fixed import.>

Interesting. That is a useful thing to notice. What it means in terms of the system I am currently proposing is that the import condition, whichever it is (but usually + ) is a presupposition, that is goes on the front of the sentence after all the other operations are done -- hence the ease of moving negations arount -- the move only in the matrix, not the prefix.

<You now seem to favour a system with + import for everything
though. At least that means we agree that {Q broda} is
equivalent to {Q da poi broda}.>

Yes, &'s comments on that seem to me totally compelling (and it is the system I wanted originally anyhow). The equation has to ahve &'s caveats, though: if {Q broda} is a {Q da poi broda}, but not conversely. But, if both are possible, they are equivalent.

<Well, at least I can take comfort in the fact that I am
not alone in my non-standardness. (I guess I was lucky that
doing a search in the web, the first definition I got for
"restricted quantification" was the one I was using.)>

I've found a couple of other places that use "restricted quantification" in this way, still mainly as a translation device (for which it works rather well, I find as I play with it -- shortens some steps in the procedure). What I call "restricted quantification" still occurs with that name, but more of it seems to be under "many-sorted" or "many-sortal quantification." When I started using the term, 30 years ago or so, the situation was different, because no one was using "restricted quantification" in the currently popular (apparently) way.

--part1_d0.23ccc07a.29c26f48_boundary--