From lojban+bncCMvjp-TQBRCEgdHeBBoEgkp4Fg@googlegroups.com Sun Apr 25 06:16:16 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O61gw-0006ig-2b; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:16:16 -0700 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf1088039wwb.16 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:16:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=CtatVsYQOfqDD+HH119+JimFybSF+P7L/tNdZ2h5nUk=; b=oiSLm7gDIJxJhmD2r6mr1r4zqxdnXn/zLLFs/tr2k9yjBdhZQ8N/t/9wl9cjIBie+z lCl66PhuUBtbnlEddeyHZnj8Thdz8jHVz7oZTuFKzqD2GYFkc1Lu8RuTBkAZdjon/QPj 3Fh/Y/sfZT+PKYd/MZ4rJc5M4nmHG0E7Qqb/c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=gOV69QCyp2XyxX3/x04UX8Fg6aUBlqTWRsrgDgAE6mSoPRsPpFn4+qsOxAPsH+h1+6 mgpMf5ngz0efLOl8TzEvvKB97B7AthMQbenO631k8Lz7lcTa+QpSmuORMDcUz218HAco PANhWEoIxQ3T8GDWqMYBjN2TgvnYI0xOgJRNI= Received: by 10.223.16.87 with SMTP id n23mr768552faa.19.1272201348108; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.6.87 with SMTP id 23ls13590340bky.0.p; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.162.203 with SMTP id w11mr145308bkx.12.1272201346385; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.162.203 with SMTP id w11mr145307bkx.12.1272201346332; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com (mail-bw0-f209.google.com [209.85.218.209]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si380246bwz.8.2010.04.25.06.15.45; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.209; Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so15097963bwz.2 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.140.67 with SMTP id h3mr1657117bku.137.1272201345126; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.47.196 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:15:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:15:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Explicit non-restriction To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.209 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> No, because everything is a referent of {ro da} (by definition). > > Yes, but. > > Given "ro" as a singular quantifier, everything takes turns being the > value of "da", one thing at a time. > > If you don't have aggregates as things themselves in your universe of > discourse, then that puts some limitations to the kinds of claims you > can make about "everything", you can only make claims that apply to > each thing individually. (Of course aggregates are cheap to add, so > that isn't necessarily a big limitation.) So you're saying that {ma poi me ro da} actually ends up restricting {ma} to *each* thing? In other words, it would have to be everything at the same time? I should have known better than to use logical quantification without knowing what I'm doing. :-) > The proposed plural quantifier "ro'oi" takes care of that by allowing > the bound variable to take any number of values at a time (without > having to create an aggregate of them as one thing). So "ro'oi da zo'u > da broda" says not only that every one thing brodas but also every two > things broda, every three things broda, every four things broda, and > so on. Wouldn't that just make it even worse in this case? >>> What if the answer is {no da}? >> >> You can still answer {no da}. > > Right, the answer to a question is never limited by the form of the > question. How to answer a question is always a matter of pragmatics. > The form of the question can only suggest the form of the answer, but > if one needs to change the form in order to be truthful, informative, > clear and relevant, one should not hesitate to do so. What matters to > the person asking something is that you tell them what they want to > know, not that you fill in a form properly (at least if they are a > person and not a machine or a bureaucrat). Yes, of course. In this case, though, wouldn't it also make sense to a machine? It seems to me that you can always sensibly answer {no da} to a {ma} question. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.