Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

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

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/19/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 5/18/06, Jorge Llambías
> > > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti}
> > > > > > > Five bears, out of all hypothetical
> > > future bears, will exist in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's "out of all bears,
> exactly
> > > five will exist (at some
> > > > > > unspecified time
> > > > > > in the future)".
> > > > >
> > > > > "[out of] all bears" amounts to my
> "[out
> > > of] the set of all
> > > > > hypothetical/possible permutations of
> > > bears". Does this clarify how
> > > > > I'm using this
> > > 'hypothetical-all-permutiation set'? Or do
> you
> > > disagree
> > > > > with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you disagree, then how are you using
> > > "[out of] all bears" in that
> > > > > above sentance?
> > > >
> > > > I was using it in my sense, i.e. "out of
> all
> > > things that count as bears".
> > >
> > > What counts as bears? Bears that will
> actually
> > > exist in the future?
> > > Surely not, consider:
> > >
> > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti}
> > >
> > > "five of all-bears-such-that(-will)-exist
> will
> > > exist"? That wouldn't
> > > say anything at all. You need a
> hypothetical
> > > mega-set so that it
> > > becomes comprehensible: "five of
> > > all-hypothetical-future-bears will
> > > exist".
> > >
> > > > > You don't mean "(out of) the set of all
> > > bears that
> > > > > will exist", because that wouldn't
> work.
> > > >
> > > > No. But notice all the different things
> it
> > > could still mean:
> > > >
> > > >     ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti
> > > >     From here to eternity, exactly five
> bears
> > > will be such that each at least
> > > >     at one time exists.
> > > >
> > > >     ze'e ba ku mu cribe ro roi ku zasti
> > > >     From here to eternity, exactly five
> bears
> > > will be such that each at every
> > > >     time exists.
> > > >
> > > >     ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe 
> zasti
> > > >     From here to eternity, there will be
> at
> > > least one time when exactly five
> > > >     bears exist.
> > > >
> > > >     ze'e ba ku ro roi ku mu cribe  zasti
> > > >     From here to eternity, every time
> time
> > > will be such that exactly five
> > > >     bears will exist at that time.
> > > >
> > > > All say different things. And that's just
> > > with {ro roi} and {su'o roi}.
> > >
> > > I don't see what this says regarding the
> > > impossibility of using this mega-set.
> > >
> > > To me 1 & 3 and 2 & 4 look identical in
> terms
> > > of final meaning:
> > >
> > > {ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti}
> > >
> > > "in-all-of future, 5 of some set of bears,
> will
> > > at some points exist"
> > >
> > > {ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe cu zasti}
> > >
> > > "in-all-of future will at some points exist
> 5
> > > of some set of bears"
> >
> > Not the same at all.  One says that for each
> of
> > five bears there will be a time that it
> exists;
> > the other says that there is a time when all
> five
> > of these bears exist together.
> >
> 
> I should have a better look at the CLL. I was
> rather certain that it
> said that the placement of those when not as an
> inner, and when using
> ku made changes only to emphasis, and not to
> meaning.

Linear order of quantifiers is decisive for
scope, i.e., whether {su'o} is after and hence in
the scope of {mu} or the other way around.