<<
1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member
category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity
(e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is
counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an
extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity!
>>
I'm not sure what this means. Most one-member categories (I'm not sure what that means either, so I will read it as "set") that we are interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all).
<<
2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda}
does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other
sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one
broda. {lo'e broda} does not claim that there is exactly one broda,
but is an instruction to conceptualize broda as a single-member
category.
>>
If some claim is essential for some operation, it is always better to make it than to imply it. The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than xorxes original or modified claims.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.