[lojban] Re: No default quantifiers.

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

--- opi_lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Hello.
> > > 
> > > In the Lojban-Wiki I have found the
> following:
> > > 
> > > "There are no default quantifiers. At all.
> For
> > > example, the default outer quantifier of
> "lo" 
> > > used to be "su'o", which means "at least
> one", 
> > > but that is no longer the case. "lo cribe"
> > could > be one, or a billion, or none."
> > > 
> > > I do not understand what for the default
> > > quantifier {su'o} has been removed. Now if
> I
> > say 
> > > {lo cribe cu danlu} I say nothing. Because
> this
> > 
> > > expression is always true. If only one bear
> is 
> > > animal it is true, if no bear is animal it
> is 
> > > also true, if there are arbitrary number of
> 
> > > bears which are animals it is also true.
> So, I 
> > > get no information from {lo cribe cu
> danlu}, 
> > > i. e. this sentence contains no
> information.
> > > 
> > Well, this is one of the peculiarities of
> xorlo:
> > "Bears are animals" might be true even if
> there
> > were no bears
> Yes but {lo cribe cu danlu} can be true even if
> none bear 
> is animal. What cannot be said about "Bears are
> animals" which 
> implies not only that at leas one bear is
> anymal but also that all 
> bear are animals. 
> 
>  (it doesn't have to be true; that
> > depends on context, etc.)  While this
> sometimes
> > corresponds with *English* intuition, it sits
> > rather poorly with logical ones (which would
> take
> > the claim then involved as universal
> conditional:
> > "For all x, if x is a bear then x is an
> animal"
> > or something laong that line).  But, even if
> on
> > cannot always conclude that there are bears
> from
> > {lo cribe cu danlu}, it is not
> informationless,
> > since it does tell us that bears are not, for
> > example, ideations or events or plants and
> that
> > is sometimes useful to know too.

> It does not tall us that at leas one bear is
> animal, so we can 
> suggest that none bear is animal and as a
> consequence we can even 
> suggest that bears are events or ideations.

I think that {lo cribe cu danlu} could not be
true if no bears were animals.  It might (I see
there is a shift on this today) be true if there
were no bears at all (bearness incorporates
animalness), but that is a different matter. 
What the sentence may not (but see today's shift)
tell is whether there are any bears at all.  But
if there are bears then they (some indefinite
number in the generalization case) are animals. 
Now, since the generalization need not generally
be universal (it pretty clearly is in the
bear-animal case, but that is incidental), bears
being an8imals does not preclude bears (other
ones, of course) being ideational or plants.  So,
{lo cribe cu danlu} does maybe not tell us that
bears exist and certainly need not tell us that
ALL bears are animals, but only that, if there
are bears, then at least some of them are
animals.  That still is some information, though
perhaps not as much as one would like.  xorlo
claims are deliberately minimal, relying on
context to supply much of the information you may
want.
 
 
> > The point is that, for general claims, the
> number
> > of things in the set about which the claim is
> > made is just not relevant, "Bears are
> animals" or
> > "Bears shit in the woods" are true of bears
> > however many there may be (and the first at
> least
> > maybe even if there are no actual bears at
> all).
> > Can you imagine saying "The claim that bears
> are
> > animals is false because there are only 17
> bears"
> > (or any other number than zero)?
> > 
> > <<It is not correct to say that if one says
> {lo
> > cribe cu danlu} it is not important how many
> > bears are animals.
> > 
> > I would say, if one says {lo cribe cu danlu}
> it
> > is not important whether bears are animals
> > (according to the new uderstanding of {lo}),
> > isn't?>>
> > 
> > I don't follow the reasoning here.
> If I say that "At least one bear is animal" I
> say something 
> informative, but if I say "May be some bears
> are animals, may be 
> none bear is animal" (what {lo cribe cu danlu}
> says) it means that 
> for me it is not important whether bears are
> animals.

Again, {lo cribe cu danlu} never says "No bears
are animals"; the nearest we can get to that is
the claim (now weakened) that the sentence MIGHT
be true even if there were no bears (it might
also be false even then, as, presumably, {lo
pavyseljirna cu blanu} is -- so it does provide
some information even if there are no bears). 
> 
> > The number of
> > bears is clearly unimportant for a general
> claim,
> > but whether that claim is true or not doesn't
> > seem insignificant, nor does {lo}, even
> xorlo,
> > make it so.
>