RE: [lojban] tu'o usage

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lionel:
> And:
> > #What is then the semantic of {tu'o broda}? If it is used when there is
> > #exactly one thing satisfying the description, why not be explicit
> > #with {lo pa broda}?
> > Reasons:
> > 1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member
> > category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity
> > (e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is
> > counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an
> > extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity!
> 
> err,  but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically
> the same as {lo pa broda}, 

This is incorrect. {pa broda} = {pa lo su'o broda}.

> and get only one marker.  Besides, one should
> always worry about quantifiers, as they are always there, implicit
> or not. 

For single-member categories (such as "Lionel Vidal"), there either
is no quantifier, or the choice of quantifier and quantifier
scope irrelevant. One should indeed generally worry about quantifiers,
but when single-member categories are involved, such worry is 
entirely wasted. Marking single-member categories saves such a
waste of effort.

> Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy
> the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader to
> draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}.

You mean {tu'o}? The reasons are those I gave in the message you are
replying to.

> > 2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda}
> > does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other
> > sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one
> > broda.
> 
> In that case, I don't see any differences as I do need this implication
> result to fully understand the semantic of {tu'o broda}.

There is a difference between claiming something and implying something.
This shows up, for example, if the whole sentence is negated. 

--And.