From lojban+bncCMvjp-TQBRD-pdLeBBoEnIf9rA@googlegroups.com Sun Apr 25 12:08:09 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O67BU-0002V5-QY; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:08:08 -0700 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf1358187wwb.16 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:58 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MktS0VSgJjutBh/PVOyXfpS3kPvq3Zs+eZPLFrnaIrU=; b=petV/+V4A0HIQcIGgO/zNrYrvhh9/s/ufCeutLdm6DnEZOhCaMW+w3njN8HH1/7Ffo 8kYS9Avq08oO7M7sN9uKZ8JpOJuhb28d8DTU0PnzmjUapAwWWIfYYWNFq9TrCLZjgqLG jo1X3jjDr4EETIcx8yNSRyIKarbTYijAbIqPs= 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:content-transfer-encoding; b=2OpjCXyjuG7IPUFDHKWehgYtRY1yscJNoUimyqNwfM568RQp9tMe45VJog5jS/O688 D44YDAceynUoXd0S/6UUs1RWJoo2VLkz/5GDuLSqqsah4DvykrVJcCwlWw8xaTR+2Lds qTRZUartb9JlhMfghMxBifm/beC96kqtAS9D4= Received: by 10.223.132.205 with SMTP id c13mr845695fat.3.1272222462595; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.35.68 with SMTP id o4ls13796829bkd.1.p; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.152.26 with SMTP id e26mr140494bkw.18.1272222461454; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.152.26 with SMTP id e26mr140493bkw.18.1272222461405; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f216.google.com (mail-bw0-f216.google.com [209.85.218.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si420347bwz.12.2010.04.25.12.07.40; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.216; Received: by mail-bw0-f216.google.com with SMTP id 8so11294609bwz.23 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.2.139 with SMTP id 11mr1855299bkj.202.1272222460192; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.47.196 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:07:20 +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 209.85.218.216 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> So you're saying that {ma poi me ro da} actually ends up >> restricting {ma} to *each* thing? =A0In other words, it would >> have to be everything at the same time? > > My comment was meant to be about "ro da" in general, not about its > particular use in "me ro da". Ah, yes, okay. > "me PA da" doesn't strictly make any sense with PA as a proper > quantifier, because what "me" needs is something with referents (so it > can create the selbri "x1 is among the referents of "), Whoa, major insight now. I understand! > and what PA as a quantifier does is quantify a bridi, so we need to > interpret "me PA da" in some way and the obvious choice is as "me lo > PA da", where PA is no longer a quantifier. Interesting. > "lo ro da" is the sumti > that has everything in the universe of discourse as referents, and so > "ma poi me (lo) ro da" indeed makes no restrictions, because any > number of things can be among the total number of things without the > need for an aggregate of them. Ah, of course! Yes, that's what I meant to say! .i do nelci ma poi me lo ro da Wow, it sounds so much more sensible. I think people might even understand it. Thanks! Everything becomes so much easier without quantifiers! :-) > So, I wasn't really objecting to what you were doing, but just to the > wording "everything is a referent of {ro da} (by definition)". > > "ro da" is an operator on a bridi, not something with referents. Yes, I see! So, to reword that: Each thing (in turn) is a referent of {da} given a {ro da} prenex. Am I correct now? (And did I use "each" correctly?) >> It seems to me that you can always >> sensibly answer {no da} to a {ma} question. > > Well, yes, sort of. "Always" is always tricky. How can you sensibly > answer "no da" to: > > =A0 ma du da > > I suppose in an empty universe of discourse you can. Of course, I didn't mean to say that {no da} is always a correct answer to any {ma} question. What I meant was that it always means something, whether it's the truth or a lie. --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.