Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of
> fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent
> coourse through that.

I propose we take as fundamental our common ground:

A- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
A+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] node zo'u ge de broda gi de brode
E+ ge da broda gi node zo'u ge de broda gi de brode
I- ganai da broda gi su'ode zo'u ge de broda gi de brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] su'ode zo'u ge de broda gi de brode
O- ganai da broda gi me'irode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] me'irode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode

There is no possible misinterpretation of those. Also these
are common ground:

roda = noda naku = naku me'iroda = naku su'oda naku
noda = roda naku = naku su'oda = naku me'iroda naku
su'oda = me'iroda naku = naku noda = naku roda naku
me'iroda = su'oda naku = naku roda = naku noda naku

We can use those to write everything in terms of {ro} only:

A- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
A+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode
E+ ge da broda gi rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode
I- ganai da broda ginai rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode zo'u ganai de broda ginai de brode
O- ganai da broda ginai rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode

Now we have to decide whether {ro da poi broda cu brode} will
mean {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode}
or {ge da broda gi ro de zo'u ganai de broda gi de brode}.

Obviously it is much simpler to use the first, because then
we have:

A- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu brode
A+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu naku brode
E+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu naku brode
I- ganai da broda ginai rode poi broda cu naku brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode poi broda cu naku brode
O- ganai da broda ginai rode poi broda cu brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] naku rode poi broda cu brode

If you make the other choice, you will have a lot of
trouble to make the conversion for all of them. Probably
it can't even be done. The same argument can be made writing
everything in terms of {su'o}, or in terms of {no}, or
in terms of {me'iro}. We can now use the same conversion
table to write each one back with its cannonical quantifier:

A- [ganai da broda gi] rode poi broda cu brode
A+ ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] node poi broda cu brode
E+ ge da broda gi node poi broda cu brode
I- ganai da broda gi su'ode poi broda cu brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] su'ode poi broda cu brode
O- ganai da broda gi me'irode poi broda cu brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] me'irode poi broda cu brode

Now we have to decide whether we want {ro broda cu brode}
to be short for {roda poi broda cu brode} or for
{ge da broda gi rode poi broda cu brode}. Again, if we
choose the first, we get from the all-ro forms:

A- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda cu brode
A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda naku brode
E+ ge da broda gi ro broda naku brode
I- ganai da broda ginai ro broda naku brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] naku ro broda naku brode
O- ganai da broda ginai ro broda cu brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] naku ro broda cu brode

If we follow the same process by writing everything in terms
of each of the quantifiers, and taking {Q broda cu brode} to
be short for {Q da poi broda cu brode} we get the forms:

A- [ganai da broda gi] ro broda cu brode
A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode
E- [ganai da broda gi] no broda cu brode
E+ ge da broda gi no broda cu brode
I- ganai da broda gi su'o broda cu brode
I+ [ge da broda gi] su'o broda cu brode
O- ganai da broda gi me'iro broda cu brode
O+ [ge da broda gi] me'iro broda cu brode

as well as the equivalences:

ro broda = no broda naku = naku me'iro broda = naku su'o broda naku
no broda = ro broda naku = naku su'o broda = naku me'iro broda naku
su'o broda = me'iro broda naku = naku no broda = naku ro broda naku
me'iro broda = su'o broda naku = naku ro broda = naku no broda naku

So far we have said nothing about inner quantifiers, and indeed we
don't need to say anything about them. We know that {Q broda}
can also be written as {Q lo ro broda}, but that doesn't change
anything in what we've done.

All we have had to define so far is {ro da poi broda cu brode} as
{ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} and {Q broda} as
{Q da poi broda}. I don't think you can get a simpler system.

Now we can use the particular "inner quantifier" quirk to
simplify these:

A+ ge da broda gi ro broda cu brode
E+ ge da broda gi no broda cu brode
I- ganai da broda gi su'o broda cu brode
O- ganai da broda gi me'iro broda cu brode

into:

A+ ro lo su'o broda cu brode
E+ no lo su'o broda cu brode
I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode
O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode

but this is really a marginal matter and not really central
to the system. We should not get distracted by this in deciding
the main issue: what are {ro da poi broda cu brode} and {ro broda}.

It seems to me that the system I presented is the most Lojbanic
if we accept the common ground forms as fundamental. If we don't
start from those, we get into particular people's intuitions
about what "all" means and so forth, and I see no point in
going that way. It's highly subjective and the forms and
relationships obtained are much more complex.

> But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of
> meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce.

Indeed. So can Llamban at least be granted "peripheral dialect
of Lojban" status?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com