[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Mass/Set
At 12:38 PM 03/12/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote:
la lojbab cusku di'e
>Implicit quantifier su'o normally means "one" but could be "part of one" in
>some circumstances.
This is a new rule!!! I don't agree with it.
We're dealing with the meaning of a "default" quantifier. I think most
defaults have exceptions. The exception is not a new rule per se. "su'o"
means "at least some" with a normal "default" interpretation of "at least
one", but I am sure there are exceptions where that default makes no sense.
Lojban is a quantification-optional language, and if you do not explicitly
specify the quantifier, you could get anything. The default is simply the
most general value that fits the most cases and can therefore be assumed if
there is no contextual information otherwise.
Just the same, Lojban is tense-optional, but we have a story-timer
convention that when applied leads to a "default tense". That not all
sentences abide by story time should not be taken as a new rule.
>Let us say that I spot someone's head far away
>sticking above an obstruction. I would say "I see someone"; "mi viska lo
>prenu" even though what I saw was far less than a person
But it would be true only if there really was a person there.
If the head turned out to be just a head you would have to
admit that you had not seen a person after all.
Since we are being grisly, I suspect that if I found a person's head in the
woods, I indeed report to the police that "there is a body in the woods",
and would not be called a liar if the rest of the body was not there.
This is a property of {viska}. The x2 is never fully
exposed to the eyes of x1.
I think that this is a property of most objects with most predicates, which
is why I consider that it is not the property of the predicate. After all,
is it "me" that viska(s), or is it my eyes, or my eyes, optic nerve and
brain, but then my heart had a role in supplying needed blood ..., but my
little toe had nothing to do with the seeing.
Normally only one side
of x2 can be detected by x1, and only the surface
of x2 at that, hardly ever the interior. And often
clothed or partly covered. There is nothing in {viska}
that requires you to detect every particle of x2 in
order to claim that you see a person, but there must
be a person there if you want to claim that what you
see is a person.
Which is implied by "lo", not by viska. If I had said "le prenu" there
would be no problem.
>To clearly say you ate the
>whole apple, you can say piropa or piro le pa lo plise.
Or {lo mulno plise}.
I look for a non-tanru approach when trying to be less ambiguous.
lojbab
----
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)