Oh, and maybe the distinction between being and existing. = ; There are those assassins, but they don't exist (I hope).

From: John E Clifford <kali9p= utra@yahoo.com>
To: = lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 9:03:03 AM

There seem to be at least two and maybe three issues here, tho= ugh when sorted out, I suspect some will be non-issues. 1) Is there a= lways a referent for a description? Generally yes, but {lo no broda} = may be an exception. 2) What numbers may be internal quantifiers in d= escriptions? Clearly positive integers, maybe some sorts of fractions= , though these are usually better handled by other expressions altogether.&= nbsp; Most non-numerical quantifiers. Not {no}, because of the contradictio= n that results. 3) What numbers can be external quantifiers to a desc= ription? Natural numbers, all non-numerical quantifiers, subject only= to the restriction that the external number is not larger than the interna= l one. Fractions in an obvious restricted sense, i.e., fractions of the set, not of the members.
From all this it seems the th= e only controversial issue is the status {lo no broda} (and parallels with = other descriptors). The easiest solution is just to disallow the form.
<= /div>

From: Michael Turniansky <= mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent:= Mon, May 16, 2011 7:13:34 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no"

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:51 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com= > wrote:

On 15 May 2011 15:58, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> = Although xorxes and John Clifford seem to understand my point (wheth= er or
> not they agree), I am least happy that I am formulating my POV in a> comprehensible manner. And yet, here I am being sucked in again= , because
> you refuse to leave it go.

I'm trying to tes= t out my understanding of the Lojban quantification,
rather than not to.

>> > Of course, since you do believe tha= t, I hope you are prepared,
>> > because all of the trained ass= assins I am sending your way are deadly.
>> > You better start = worrying about their cardinality.
>>
>> "all of the trained assassins" (ro lo broda), given no= context, can
>> mean one thousand (ki'o lo broda) or none (no lo = broda) or else. In
>> any case, it refers to "the trained assassin= s" (lo broda), something
>> -- not nothing, not nomei.
>
> Then I leave you= with a question. If broda =3D "the trained assassins that
> I = am sending your way", Then "no lo xo broda"? If you insist I can only=
> send you zero OF some trained assassins, then how many assassins am I<= br>> sending you none OF?

I don't know.

More pertine= nt to my point isn't how many assassins there are, but
whether the sumti= is referring to something or nothing.

> Please quanitfy that number for me.
> = For whether you
> know the answer or not (or indeed, whether one CAN&= nbsp; know what the answer is
> or not), there must be some answer to= it.

Whether or not I know the answer would determine whether or not I=
could truthfully quantify the number (should there be any objective
= answer to it at all). I don't know 'the answer'; are you asking me to
arbitrarily make one up?

No, I am not asking you to arbitrarily make one up. I am = asking you to think about exactly how many trained assassing I am sending y= our way, because all of them are deadly. (And if you think the answer= is more than zero, that says a lot more about your paranoia then it does a= bout lojban quanitifers.)

There need not be any exact numb= er as 'the answer' to "lo xo broda" in
order for "lo broda" to be a refe= rence to broda1, something, whose
primal contrast to nothing is what has been at stake in my comments.
The= dichotomy of "some quantity / no quantity" precedes the
particulars of = "some quantity", such as "one" and "three". "One thing"
differs from "zero thing" primarily in that it is something as opposed
t= o nothing;

I do not disagree with that. I am fully on board with tha= t statement.

"three things" differ from "zero thi= ng" primarily in that
they are both individually and collectively someth= ing as opposed to
nothing; and so on. As far as cardinality is concerned, the difference
b= etween "zero" and "some" is more primitive than the difference
between "= zero" and positive integers. The fact that "some" can be
meaningful in primitive terms of "non-zero" rather than of such
particul= ars as "one" or "three", warrants the act of making reference
to somethi= ng with no provision for its specific total quantity.

It may not be integers, but I would think you defnitely have to= be positive reals, at the very least in order to qualify "some". (su'o)

In Lojban, only "no" can exactly qua= ntify nothing, and all non-"no"
cardinalities can be defined by means of= contrast to "no": "nonai". If
I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" from your
exampl= e, I might say "nonai".

There's no such grammatical contruct, but again, I would hate t= o think that you can mean by that negatives, or imaginary numbers.

&nbs= p; --gejyspa

--
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.