From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 12:09:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 20:09:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 194 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 20:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 20:09:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.151) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 20:09:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:09:21 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:09:21 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:09:21 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2002 20:09:21.0935 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC9799F0:01C1CA01] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13635 la pycyn cusku di'e >< > no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi > >Does that have existential import for brode? Can you really >tell at a glance?> > >You have constructed a case where I have to stop and think a bit. {me'iro} is hard to think about. I wonder whether there's no simple word for it because it is hard, or whether it is hard because there's no simple word for it... Probably the first. Anyway, here's what I do to understand what it says: First introduce a {naku naku} between the two terms: no broda naku naku me'iro da poi brode cu brodi Now, {no broda naku} reduces to {ro broda} in both our systems (not in Aristotle's though). And {naku me'iro da poi brode} is any of {ro brode} or {ro da poi brode} in my system, and I think {ro brode} in yours. That means it reduces in both systems to: ro broda ro brode cu brodi This is right, "no broda is a brodi to not all brode" is the same as "all broda are brodi to all brode". So, in my system it has import for neither broda nor brode, while in your system it has import for both. Did having the form {no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi} really help with that? Let's consider this other case: su'o broda su'o brode cu brodi which has import for both of us. We can be nasty and rewrite it as: su'o broda naku naku su'o brode cu brodi For me {su'o broda naku} is {me'iro broda} and {naku su'o brode} is {no brode}. For you they are {me'iro broda} and {no da poi brode}. We then have: me'iro broda no da poi brode cu broda "Some broda is brodi to some brode" = "Not all broda are brodi to no brode". Sounds correct. We can see that your import rule only works for the first term. The second term gets the opposite import than what one might naively assume from your rules. >But in >your system, I always have to stop and think -- in fact recall the whole >table to figure where this form fits in. To be sure, the prefixes forms >would help, but are unwieldy (to be polite). I am very comfortable with making transformations in my system, but making any transformation in yours almost always gives me a headache, so I will keep using mine. You can use yours and call it official (though it departs from the Book about as much as mine does), and we'll just have to take the risk that if we ever communicate in Lojban we might in some marginal case misunderstand each other. (Not that this would be anything new.) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com