If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an = implicit ro in front, you will misunderstand what it says.
no is not a n= umber like the others, being defined by a negation, though it does re= present a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole proposition (as = does every quantifier), in this case by putting a negation somewhere in it.=
Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or = L-sets, no is not a permissible internal quantifier.
The apple eating ex= amples are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one need not have the same r= eferent as 'plise' in the second. In the second 'plise' refers to all= apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' refers to apples which may= be contextually specified (less than all). So the second imples the first but not conversely. (What do you mean by "are teh statemen= ts the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- clearly they are = different sentences.)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and defau= lt quantifiers

mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because ther= e are no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use cont= ext to assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bev= ri lo pipno})

And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like = {pa}, {re}, {su'o}, or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quan= tifier of a sumti can directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers= can't.

I understand intuitively why that is the case. Bu= t it still feels strange. I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo= plise} and {mi citka no plise} really are identical (I know that the meani= ngs of the statements are the same, but are the statements themselves the s= ame as each other)

2011/5/1 Jorge Llamb=EDas = <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. = If
> xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn'= t {no}
> be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?

No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either.

> e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (im= plicit or
> explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context th= at I
> in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it.

It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would translate it as "I eat apples". It doesn't even have to be about any
specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least
one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations.

> Furthermore, if I
> said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that pe= ople
> would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta} or som= ething
> like it.

I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don't think I
would read it as "I own several of many books".

> So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about = the
> secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} since= there
> is no proscribed default?

No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't=
expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if
you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that
you mean "mi citka no lo plise".

> Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should b= e
> reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse lo c= ukta}
> could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no lo c= ukta}.

But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do you want to=
force one on it?

> In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that= most
> tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u brodad= o na
> nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta .i va'o= lo nu
> broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. Therefore, I argue that even= if the
> grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojba= n with
> the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}.
> Thoughts?

I at least don't.

Here is an example where "su'o" fails:

lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno.
"Three men are carrying a piano."

It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three
men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all
three doing it together.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.