Re: any? (response to Desmond)

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Desmond:
> >>> A feature of dr is the fundamental role in it of what I call
> >>> *indeterminates*.  For example, if a and b are indeterminates of the sort
> >>> number, then the *unquantified* sentence
> >>>         a^2 - b^2 = (a-b)(a+b)
> >>> is true.  a and b are *potential entities* of the sort number.  This may
 be
> >>> the only information we have about them, or we may have total information
> >>> about them (such as that a=5 and b=3) or we may have partial information
> >>> about them (such as that a is positive).  In each case our sentence
 remains
> >>> true: it is true by virtue solely of the fact that a and b are numbers.

> Jorge:
> >>This is not the case for Lojban {lo}.
> >>
> >>For example:
> >>
> >>        lo remna cu mamta mi
> >>        A human being is mother to me
> >>
> >>is true.  Not by virtue of the fact that {lo remna} is a human being,
> >>but because of the fact that there is one human being that is in
> >>relationship {mamta} with {mi}.

Desmond:
> I don't think that conflicts with lo remna being an indeterminate.  A
> sentence involving an indeterminate may be true for various reasons.  Your
> sentence is true in the presence of the information that humans have
> mothers.

No, that's not enough to make it true. One of all those that are humans
has to be my mother in order that the sentence be true.

> Everyone has that information so everyone agrees.  (My "it is
> true by virtue solely of the fact that a and b are numbers" may be
> misleading.  Add "and addition of numbers is associative, and ...".)

You can give a and b any values, and your sentence will remain true. If you
give different values to {lo remna} in my sentence, you get false statements.
The sentence is true because there is one remna in relationship {mamta}
with {mi}.

(Another difference is that you can have the same indeterminate "a" appearing
in various places in the sentence, while various {lo remna} in the same
sentence do not refer necessarily to the same one.)

But look at an example that is easy to translate:

        a > b

is neither true nor false if all you know is that a and b are numbers.

        lo namcu cu zmadu lo namcu
        A number is greater than a number

_is_ true.

Then, you can't say that {lo namcu} = "a number" works like an indeterminate.
Do you agree?

> lojbab:
> >But how do you evaluate a story:
> >
> >"lo nanmu cu klama co jibni lo ninmu .i le nanmu cu cpedu le ninmu lenu
> >kansa klama le dansu nunsalci"
> >
> >"A man goes near a woman.  And the man asks the woman to
> >accompanyingly-go to the dance-celebration."
> >
> This makes good sense to me. Could one put it like this?  In the first
> sentence "a man" and "a woman " are indeterminates about which we have no
> information except their types (and all the agreed properties that go with
> their types).  In the second sentence some more information about these
> same indeterminates is expressed.  "the man" (and "le nanmu"?) tell us that
> whatever entity may have been referred to in the first sentence is also the
> entity referred to in the second.

Not in that Lojban sentence. {le nanmu} is not necessarily a nanmu that makes
the first sentence true. (Context suggest it is, though, but there are better
ways to translate that English sentence into Lojban.)

> English, though clear, is rather clumsy
> about this.  Standard mathematical usage would be "m goes near w.  And m
> asks w to ...."  English would require "the first man" and "the second man"
> to refer again to "a man" and "another man".

In Lojban one could say:

ko'a klama le jibni be ko'e  i ko'a cpedu fi ko'e ...
A goes near B. A asks B to...

Just like your mathematical example. Probably the {ko'a} series work well
as your indeterminates. They may or may not have previously assigned values
or types.

> I would be interested in the simplest lojban
> rendering of
> (1)  A man is eating an icecream.  The man is happy.
> (2)  Two people are in a room.  The man is happy.
> (3)  A man may eat an icecream.  A man may be happy.
> (4)  A man may eat an icecream.  That would make him happy.

You must realize that in different contexts, those sentences will mean
different things and may have to be translated differently.

Here's a possible rendering:

(1) le nanmu ca'o citka le biskruji  i ny gleki
(2) le re prenu cu nenri le kumfa  i le nanmu cu gleki
(3) lo nanmu ka'e citka lo biskruji  i lo nanmu ka'e gleki
(4) le nanmu ka'e citka le biskruji  i le nu ca'a go'i cu geirgau ny


Jorge