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

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

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/13/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Almost certainly, for
> > example, {lo pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is
> > true in this way as a general claim, even
> when
> > there are no unicorns; 
> 
> When there are no unicorns where? 
> 
> The claim can be true when there are no
> unicorns in the real
> (physical) world because it almost certainly is
> not a claim about
> the real world.


Hey, I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt here. 
I say that it is likely, given the nature of
xorlo, that {lo pavyseljirna cu pavyseljirna} is
true in any universe whatsoever, including
whatever the current universe, whatever it is,
even if it does not contain unicorns.  It is not
clear why this claim is not about whatever the
current universe is.  Of course, if it is not,
then we are left to puzzle out what universe it
is about; it is not obvious that it has to be one
that contains unicorns, but maybe it must. 
 
> {lo namcu cu namcu}, "numbers are numbers" is
> also true
> even though there are no numbers in the
> physical world,
> because it is clear that {lo namcu} does not
> refer to a 
> physical object.

Actually, it is not obvious, though traditionally
held.  But, so far as I know, no one has ever
insisted -- in these discussions -- that the home
universe has to be -- or even contain -- the
"physical universe."
  
> It is very hard to think of any case in which
> {lo broda cu broda}
> would be false for any broda. At worse it would
> be meaningless
> {lo fugza cu fugza} if "fugza" is a meaningless
> word, but even 
> then I would tend to think it is true but I
> just don't know what
> fugzas are.

The point exactly.
 
> > 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). 
> 
> Quantifiers need not range over physical
> objects though.

No one says that they do.  Why repeat this point?

> For example {ro namcu cu namcu}, "each number
> is a 
> number", or {ro selbri cu selbri}, "each
> relation is a relation",
> are true, and so would {ro pavyseljirna cu
> pavyseljirna} in 
> any context I can think of.
> 
> 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.
> 
> {lo broda} without quantifiers behaves just as
> {le broda}
> withouth quantifiers, and indeed like any other
> sumti without
> quantifiers.

If this is true, then the meaning of {le} has
changed even more radically than that of {lo} --
and now defintely to the dtriment of
expressibility in Lojban.  This may actually have
happened since I have seen {le broda} equated
with {lo "broda"}, as though accurate description
were the significant difference.

 With quantifiers too. For any
> sumti, we have:
> 
> PA <sumti> = PA da poi ke'a me <sumti> 
> 
The difference is less in what is said, but how
it is said: {le broda} is always about brodas (or
"brodas"), {lo broda} is presumably never
directly about brodas.  Even if we habitually
understand things correctly, the technical
difference are enormous.