[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: lo questions
Quoting Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
{ci [lo] gerku} is not very meaningful by itself. An outer quantifier is an
operator, and it needs a full bridi to operate on.
{ci [lo] gerku cu broda} means that among the referents of {lo gerku},
i.e. among dogs, there are three and no more than three that satisfy
the predicate {... broda}.
Inner quantifiers are not operators. {lo ci gerku} is all by itself a
complete meaningful expression. It's a sumti, with one or more
referents. When we use it in a sentence we will be saying something
about those referents.
It seems like in this case it might help to think about the phrase:
"re lo ci gerku"
Two of the three dogs. There are two different places, here both of
them filled, either or both of which can be elided. In the absence of
one, we're free to imagine what might fill it, as constrained by the
other (in addition to all the rest of the context).
"re lo gerku" we can imagine to be two out of a concrete number of
dogs involved in the situation, like three, or it might be two out of
all dogs ever to have existed, etc.
"lo ci gerku" says that the three dogs, three dogs who go together &
who are meaningful to this situation, were involved. Maybe not every
single one of them was involved-- we can imagine it could be only one
or two of the three of them, it doesn't say. (It's hard to imagine
that it could be five dogs, because the concreteness of the "lo" means
that the "ci" is true in an ordinary sense.)
I think by putting together the implications of each of those
emptinesses in relation to each other, we can see something about what
each one means on its own. It seems to me that they relate to two
different levels of discourse. The inner qualifier identifies the
nature of the set considered; it relates the sumti to its outer
context in the whole conversation. The outer qualifier identifies how
many out of the identified set were in the relation described; it
relates the understood sumti to the bridi being constructed.
I feel like it might clarify even more if we added some context to the
situation. Suppose we're talking about three dogs, Fluffy, Rex and
Mars. Now that I've established a bit of context, it makes more sense
if I say: "pa lo gerku cu bajra" -- One of the dogs runs, but pa lo xo
gerku? One of how many? Well I just told you, I'm talking to you
about Fluffy, Rex, and Mars. The implication [ca'e] is that "pa lo
gerku" means "pa lo ci gerku".
It seems different to me to now say "lo pa gerku cu bajra". The one
dog runs. All we've been talking about so far is three dogs-- we said
about them that one of them runs. We haven't discussed yet a "one
dog." It feels to me like it would make sense to ask now: "lo pa
gerku bi'upei" -- is this an unrelated (new-information) dog that
you're mentioning?
In English numbers just sort of glob onto the front of nouns,
indifferent to whether they're making three wheels or the three kings
or the number three bus. Lojbanic numbers form particular
relationships with their sentences, several particular relationships
none of which English can express at all.
The outer quantification takes an established sumti, which points to
some referent in some real or imaginary world, and slices it up. Many
referents are plural, meaning that they refer to more than one thing,
each of which fits the same description while also having its own
distinct characteristics, just like my imaginary Fluffy, Rex and Mars.
The outer quantification is capable of working on these kinds of
referents, taking just parts of them to include in a bridi
relationship. Together they are "lo ci gerku", and every time that
any one of them does something, "pa lo ci gerku" is doing it, and
every time that two of them both do something, "re lo ci gerku" are
doing it, and every time the three of them are all doing something
together, "ci lo ci gerku" are doing it, or "ro lo gerku", which is
the same thing in this context, [ca'e] (== I hereby define! I make it
true just by saying so!).
The inner quantification has that sense of "ca'e" in it. You're still
slicing and dicing the world, as language is wont to do, but you are
not slicing your own referent. You are talking about a number of
things, plurally, considering them as one coherent part of the world
which relates to other parts.
It seems to me that every time you take a slice with the outer
quantifier, you are in fact creating another coherent referent, which
might be adding to the confusion! Consider for instance this sequence
of statements, in this context: "re lo gerku cu xamgu .i lo re gerku
cu xekri" Two of the dogs are good. The two dogs are black. The
first bridi slices out two of the aforementioned dogs, and says that
they're good. The second sentence refers to some contextually
meaningful set of "two dogs," clearly in this case the two dogs who
were just sliced out, and says that they are black. (Important
information to watch out for, if you ever meet "lo ci gerku" on the
side of the road.)
That's my understanding so far. Does it match with how y'all see the
new "lo" working? It seems to me like it's not really that clear yet,
but it's a lot clearer and more useful than where we were before.
mu'o mi'e la mungodjelis. no'u la bret.
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.