[lojban] Re: Un-definite quantifier.

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/13/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > {lo broda} without quantifiers behaves just
> as
> > > {le broda}
> > > withouth quantifiers, and indeed like any
> other
> > > sumti without
> > > quantifiers.
> > 
> > If this is true, then the meaning of {le} has
> > changed even more radically than that of {lo}
> --
> > and now defintely to the dtriment of
> > expressibility in Lojban.  This may actually
> have
> > happened since I have seen {le broda} equated
> > with {lo "broda"}, as though accurate
> description
> > were the significant difference.
> 
> The significant difference is specificity. 


Which, of course, does not come through with the
above cited equivalence.  That is the only point
of this case, except to notice yet again that
theoretical semantic procedures are radically
different, which is the point of the rest of the
discussion on my part.  

> {le namcu} "the number(s) I have in mind".
> {le pavyseljirna} "the unicorn(s) I have in
> mind".
> {le gerku} "the dog(s) I have in mind".
> 
> {lo namcu} "number(s)"
> {lo pavyseljirna} "unicorn(s)"
> {lo gerku} "dog(s)"
> 
> The difference doesn't affect how they behave
> vis-a-vis
> quantification, which is the same in all cases:
> 
>  PA <sumti> = PA da poi ke'a me <sumti>

That the trivial rewrite rules are unchanged is
uninteresting unless the way these rules are
confirmed are unchanged. (I hope that you are not
suggesting this identity constitutes and
explanation of what the expression means.  If so,
notice that {me} becomes ambiguous -- or
incedibly vague -- in the process, rednerin the
explanation empty.)   As it happens, with
quantifiers they do indeed come to the same
thing, because {PA (lo) broda} is semantically so
different from {lo broda}, while {PA le broda}
and {le broda} are semantically the same at base.