From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 19 06:40:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 13:40:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 91269 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 13:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 13:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 13:40:46 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.102.1b291dc8 (18707) for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:40:31 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15844 --part1_102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 8:25:56 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: << > 1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member > category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity > (e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is > counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an > extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity! >> I'm not sure what this means. Most one-member categories (I'm not sure what that means either, so I will read it as "set") that we are interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all). << 2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda} does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one broda. {lo'e broda} does not claim that there is exactly one broda, but is an instruction to conceptualize broda as a single-member category. >> If some claim is essential for some operation, it is always better to make it than to imply it. The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than xorxes original or modified claims. --part1_102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2002 8:25:56 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

<<

1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member
category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity
(e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is
counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an
extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity!

>>
I'm not sure what this means. Most one-member categories (I'm not sure what that means either, so I will read it as "set") that we are interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all).

<<
2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda}
does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other
sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one
broda. {lo'e broda} does not claim that there is exactly one broda,
but is an instruction to conceptualize broda as a single-member
category.
>>
If some claim is essential for some operation, it is always better to make it than to imply it. The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than xorxes original or modified claims. --part1_102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf_boundary--