[lojban-beginners] Re: spofu pemci

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 3/15/07, Turniansky, Michael <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:
>  "LE broda cu brode GI'A brodi vau LE brodo" => "LE broda
> cu brode LE brodo .i JA LE broda cu brodi LE brood"  (do I have THAT
> right, at least??)

I would say yes, but I'm almost sure I could find people who disagree.

Let's consider a concrete example:

1a)  lo cinfo cu nakni gi'e femti
1b)  Lions are male and female.

2a)  lo cinfo cu nakni .ije lo cinfo cu femti
2b)  Lions are male and lions are female.

For me, (1a) and (2a) say the same thing (and the English (1b) and (2b)
also say that same thing). What they say is relatively vague, at least if
compared with the more precise quantified forms:

3a)  ro cinfo cu nakni gi'e femti
3b)  All lions are male and female.

4a)  ro cinfo cu nakni .ije ro cinfo cu femti
4b)  All lions are male and all lions are female.

5a)  su'o cinfo cu nakni gi'e femti
5b)  Some lions are male and female.

6a)  su'o cinfo cu nakni .ije su'o cinfo cu femti
6b)  Some lions are male and some lions are female.

Notice that (3) and (4) happen to mean the same thing (because the
quantifier {ro} and the connective {gi'e} can change their relative scope
without changing meaning), but (5) and (6) mean very different things
(because {ro} and {gi'a} cannot change their relative scope without a change
of meaning).

(3)=(4), and (5) are clearly false. (6) is clearly true.

(1) and (2) are more vague, but I would say they are true. If someone says
(1) or (2) you may want to ask for more precision, just in case. Some people
think that Lojban cannot tolerate this kind of vagueness, so they will
either not
agree with me that (1a) and (1b) mean the same thing, or they will not agree
that they can be true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes