Re: [lojban] Re: Un-definite quantifier.

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- opi_lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You don't need the {lo} here.
> Where? In the last example or in all my
> examples? And why I do not
> need {lo}? It is not necessary or I change
> meaning if I put {lo}?

In all cases, {PA lo gerku} = {PA gerku}
 
> Is {su'o lo gerku} not equivalent to {lo
> gerku}? I thought that if we
> have no quantifier before {lo} it means (by
> default) "undefinet number
> but not zero", or the same "some", or the same
> "at leas one", isn't? 

Well, it used to be (was in CLL and still was for
years thereafter) but xorlo behaves differently. 
{lo gerku} is not directly about dogs, but,
rather, is about dogs in a roundabout way that
passes through the concept ^dog^ or something
like it.  As a result it may be the case (I think
the jury is still out on some of these) that some
simple sentences of the form {lo broda cu brode}
may be true even if there are no brodas, because
the concepts ^broda^ and ^brode^ are related in a
particularly tight way.  Almost certainly, for
example, {lo pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is
true in this way as a general claim, even when
there are no unicorns; and the same may be the
case for {lo pavyseljirna cu blabi}, at least for
those who think unicorns are white horses with
single horns.
Quantified {lo broda} expressions, on the other
hand, are directly about brodas and so require
that there be some brodas to be true (well,
subject to a lot of conditions about scopes of
negations and the like). The fact that {lo broda}
without quantifiers (and with internal
quantifiers) behaves so differently from {le
broda} is one objection to xorlo, the claim being
that absolutely nothing is gained by the
complication invloved.