Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

["Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>]

and:
> I don't see a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}. What
> am I missing?
It does not matter as long as you exclude the case of 0 with {ro}, and
this...

pc:
>The {ro}-{su'o} distinction goes back to a time when someone thought
>that {ro}, "every," permitted the case of 0 of the whatsis and {su'o}
> did not.  The first part of this turned out to be false in the official
line

I did not know that the case was settled.  In any cases, the book is not
at all explicit about this and I think I remember a recent mail from
xorxes where he says he does include 0.
This being said, I agree that {ro} should not include the 0 case from
a logical and practical point of view.

> > Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in
> > our case than {tu'o broda}.
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

Sorry, that was badly expressed: I meant that the truth value and
the implication on the referent cardinality would be the same.


> 1. {lo pa} is sensitive to negation: whereas {tu'o broda na brode}
> is unproblematic, it corresponds to {lo pa broda na ku brode}, not
> to {lo pa broda na brode}.

Interresting: you seem to think that {naku} will have an impact
on moving through {lo pa}. I don't think {naku} will change the
inner quantifier of  the {lo} expression. That is:
{lo pa broda naku brode} = {su 'o lo pa broda naku brode}
= {naku zu'o ro lo pa broda cu brode} = {ro lo pa broda na brode}
and, again with exclusion of the 0 case of {ro}
= {lo pa broda na brode}

Now, I may have a problem with the semantic of {na} and {naku},
specifically with the negation of the referent existence:
providing that with  {lo broda cu brode} I claim 2 things,
the existence of at least one {broda} referent, and the {brode}
relationship, does the {na} or {naku} in {lo broda na/naku brode},
apart from deying the {brode} relationship, still claim (or imply)
the existence of at least one {broda} referent?
I  would say yes with both {na} and {naku}, but after reading again
the related chapters of the book, I can't say it has been made explicit
(or I failed to see it).

> 2. {lo pa} makes a claim. I do not wish it to have to be the case
> that whenever I talk about a du'u I also claim that there is only
> one du'u. If I say {lo pa broda cu brode} I am claiming that
> (i) something is broda and brode, and (ii) the cardinality of
> lo'i broda is 1. But I want to be able to claim only (i).

If you want to claim only (i), than {lo} alone does just that.

> First off, let me note that {lo'e} serves as an adequate alternative
> to {tu'o}.

As I understand now your definition of {lo'e}, it cannot be a true
alternative to {tu'o}:
{lo'e broda cu brode} can be true even if {lo broda} has no referent,
because {lo'e broda} is mainly an category abstraction and does have
a referent, while {tu'o broda} implies the existence of a broda referent.
But I may have misunderstood your definition of {lo'e, given in the ever
lasting thread on 'chocolate and unicorns' :-)

mu'omi'e lioNEL




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/