From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jun 15 12:31:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 93318 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 19:31:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m29.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 19:31:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 19:31:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Didbf-000304-E3 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:31:24 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Didb8-0002zG-NE; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Didaw-0002z6-0d for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:38 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.79]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Didat-0002yz-5Q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:37 -0700 Received: (qmail 43305 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jun 2005 19:30:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20050615193033.43303.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81304.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:33 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10179 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: No default quantifiers. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=NzyMOBcEQsEnRCPlDUSkdcZiHuJmhTLAs8xlPkFkxBGoLkTniw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24550 --- opi_lauma wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > > > In the Lojban-Wiki I have found the > following: > > > > > > "There are no default quantifiers. At all. > For > > > example, the default outer quantifier of > "lo" > > > used to be "su'o", which means "at least > one", > > > but that is no longer the case. "lo cribe" > > could > be one, or a billion, or none." > > > > > > I do not understand what for the default > > > quantifier {su'o} has been removed. Now if > I > > say > > > {lo cribe cu danlu} I say nothing. Because > this > > > > > expression is always true. If only one bear > is > > > animal it is true, if no bear is animal it > is > > > also true, if there are arbitrary number of > > > > bears which are animals it is also true. > So, I > > > get no information from {lo cribe cu > danlu}, > > > i. e. this sentence contains no > information. > > > > > Well, this is one of the peculiarities of > xorlo: > > "Bears are animals" might be true even if > there > > were no bears > Yes but {lo cribe cu danlu} can be true even if > none bear > is animal. What cannot be said about "Bears are > animals" which > implies not only that at leas one bear is > anymal but also that all > bear are animals. > > (it doesn't have to be true; that > > depends on context, etc.) While this > sometimes > > corresponds with *English* intuition, it sits > > rather poorly with logical ones (which would > take > > the claim then involved as universal > conditional: > > "For all x, if x is a bear then x is an > animal" > > or something laong that line). But, even if > on > > cannot always conclude that there are bears > from > > {lo cribe cu danlu}, it is not > informationless, > > since it does tell us that bears are not, for > > example, ideations or events or plants and > that > > is sometimes useful to know too. > It does not tall us that at leas one bear is > animal, so we can > suggest that none bear is animal and as a > consequence we can even > suggest that bears are events or ideations. I think that {lo cribe cu danlu} could not be true if no bears were animals. It might (I see there is a shift on this today) be true if there were no bears at all (bearness incorporates animalness), but that is a different matter. What the sentence may not (but see today's shift) tell is whether there are any bears at all. But if there are bears then they (some indefinite number in the generalization case) are animals. Now, since the generalization need not generally be universal (it pretty clearly is in the bear-animal case, but that is incidental), bears being an8imals does not preclude bears (other ones, of course) being ideational or plants. So, {lo cribe cu danlu} does maybe not tell us that bears exist and certainly need not tell us that ALL bears are animals, but only that, if there are bears, then at least some of them are animals. That still is some information, though perhaps not as much as one would like. xorlo claims are deliberately minimal, relying on context to supply much of the information you may want. > > The point is that, for general claims, the > number > > of things in the set about which the claim is > > made is just not relevant, "Bears are > animals" or > > "Bears shit in the woods" are true of bears > > however many there may be (and the first at > least > > maybe even if there are no actual bears at > all). > > Can you imagine saying "The claim that bears > are > > animals is false because there are only 17 > bears" > > (or any other number than zero)? > > > > < {lo > > cribe cu danlu} it is not important how many > > bears are animals. > > > > I would say, if one says {lo cribe cu danlu} > it > > is not important whether bears are animals > > (according to the new uderstanding of {lo}), > > isn't?>> > > > > I don't follow the reasoning here. > If I say that "At least one bear is animal" I > say something > informative, but if I say "May be some bears > are animals, may be > none bear is animal" (what {lo cribe cu danlu} > says) it means that > for me it is not important whether bears are > animals. Again, {lo cribe cu danlu} never says "No bears are animals"; the nearest we can get to that is the claim (now weakened) that the sentence MIGHT be true even if there were no bears (it might also be false even then, as, presumably, {lo pavyseljirna cu blanu} is -- so it does provide some information even if there are no bears). > > > The number of > > bears is clearly unimportant for a general > claim, > > but whether that claim is true or not doesn't > > seem insignificant, nor does {lo}, even > xorlo, > > make it so. >