RE: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > >I wasn't aware of the "retu'o" usage
> >
> > I'm not sure if it has been used, but it has been thought of, once we had
> > created tu'o for the other purpose
>
> If retu'o is not canonical then it is plainly wrong, seeing as the mo'ezi'o
> meaning of tu'o is canonical.

I don't know what you mean by canonical. If you mean that CLL says that 
tu'o and mo'ezi'o are identical in meaning, can I trouble you for a cite, 
because I certainly don't see it. Indeed zi'o is never discussed in 
interaction with anything else.

It is plausible that the only uses of tu'o in CLL could be replaced by 
mo'ezi'o, but even that is arguable since there is no formal definition of 
the combination mo'ezi'o - it must be inferred. But in addition, lack of 
other examples is not a definition.

> > li re
>
> = "each of the one thing that is the number 2", according to John.

That is NOT in evidence. CLL says:

> <cx "article, number"><cx "the, for talking about numbers themselves"><lx 
> "li"><cx "number article, explanation of use"><cx "numbers, talking about 
> contrasted with using for quantification"><cx "numbers, using for 
> quantification contrasted with talking about">The cmavo liis the number 
> article. It is required whenever a sentence talks about numbers as 
> numbers, as opposed to using numbers to quantify things. For exam­ple:
>
> <p>
>
> <pre><a name=e5d2>5.2) le ci prenu
>
> the three persons
>
> </pre>requires no liarticle, because the ciis being used to specify the 
> number of prenu. However, the sentence
>
> <p>
>
> <ex "3 grams"><pre><a name=e5d3>5.3) levi sfani cu grake li ci
>
> This fly masses-in-grams the-number three.
>
> This fly has a mass of 3 grams.
>
> </pre><cx "measurements, expressing"><cx "units of measurement, 
> expressing">requires libecause ciis being used as a sumti. Note that this 
> is the way in which measurements are stated in Lojban: all the predicates 
> for units of length, mass, tem­pera­ture, and so on have the measured 
> object as the first place and a number as the sec­ond place. Using lifor 
> lein <a href=#e5d2>Example 5.2 </a>would produce
>
> <p>
>
> <pre><a name=e5d4>5.4) li ci prenu
>
> The-number 3 is-a-person.
>
> </pre>which is grammatical but nonsensical: numbers are not persons.

It is not translated in CLL as "each of the one thing that is the number 3" 
(not that I see any difference between that and "the number 3", but I 
assume you do in order to make your claim).

Furthermore, your excessive interpretation of default quantifiers in 
contradicted by CLL. to wit:
> There are rules for each of the 11 descriptors specifying what the 
> implicit val­ues for the inner and outer quantifiers are. They are meant 
> to provide sensible default values when context is absent, not necessarily 
> to prescribe hard and fast rules.

In other words, the default quantifiers are NOT definitional.

(I also don't find any place that lists a default quantifier for "li" in CLL)

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org