From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jun 15 10:27:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 7886 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2005 17:27:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Jun 2005 17:27:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2005 17:27:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DibfH-0000Rv-0n for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:59 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dibf5-0000Ra-0d; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:48 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dibes-0000RB-Ql for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:34 -0700 Received: from web81307.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.82]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dibec-0000Qs-2R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:34 -0700 Received: (qmail 90621 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jun 2005 17:26:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20050615172616.90619.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:16 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20050615160226.1921.qmail@web33409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10172 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=e0i6EV3u6D1IFtRmH8soxUe-cqBEN0IUGQCIpW69fyYFksjxbQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24543 --- 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 (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. 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)? <> I don't follow the reasoning here. 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.