masses, quantifiers, and ko'a

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

And:
>How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti?

At the time you asked this, there was a thread going on about "ro ko'a"
under subject heading "Re:  Quantifiers" Everything about "ko'a" is true
about "do", assuming both are plural.

>I've used multiple SEs (including vacuous ones, I think).

There's a lot of things you've done that no one else would do, And %^)

Cowan answered the above, with Jorge following up:
>> > How does this work? Are {suo do} and {ro do} okay as sumti?
>>
>> They are, indeed:  "at least one of you" and "all of you" respectively.
>> You can precede any sumti whatever with a quantifier.
>
>The problem with {do} is its individual/mass ambivalence.  While {ro do}
>suggests that {do} refers to one or more individuals, other uses seem to
>suggest otherwise.  For example, what does {do bevri lo tanxe} mean?
>"Each of you carries a box" or "You all together carry a box"?
>
>To be consistent, {do} should always be a mass (because mi'o, ma'a, etc.
>are defined as masses, not individuals), and the proper way of saying
>"each of you" and "two of you" should be {ro lu'a do} and {re lu'a do}.

Not generally a problem, since masses are quantified in fractions, and
generally indefinite ones at that, while individuals are quantified in
units.

So, while mi'o is derived from mi joi do, one should not be confused by
re mi'o "two of us". piso'u mi'o "a little bit of us" is pretty
unambiguous the other way.  Now, if someone wants to argue about "pimu
mi'o", you could have a point, but that is an odd enough situation that
I would recommend using one of the members of the lu'V series for any of
the above.

Even when one specifies that something is a mass vs. individuals, it is
still necessary to decide the default quantifier.  You guys seemed to be
discussing "su'o ko'a" vs.  "ro ko'a" (not sure where you ended up), and
there are arguments for both "pisu'o mi'o" and "piro mi'o".

>So what does this mean:
>
>        so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da
>        Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/
>        those that bite?/those with teeth?)

It means someone is trying to come up with a difficult case that is hard
to understand, and has succeeded.

I start with using instead of that final "da":
ri = themselves (respectively or distributively is a bit ambiguous)
ra = those with teeth
ru = dogs

But someone wanting to be CLEAR, would start assigning ko'V-series
variables as they went.

It seems that if you are using quantifiers on previous "da"s, you need
to explicitly use one here.  If you had said "ije so'i da batci so'u da"
Cowan's rule would have been clear that you were subselecting from the
biters.  Therefore "ije so'i da batci so'a da", though causing a
double-take, must be a similar subselection, and "ije so'i da batci ro
da" means that each of the biters bite each of the biters".

Since unquantified "da" is so ambiguous as to quantification in this
situation, I have no problem with assuming it to result in "themselves".

Perhaps the proper question is to ask pc what he would do to a logic
student who used the corresponding notational structure in a logic paper
%^) (or at least how he would interpret what that student had written).
And if his answer is that it would not be considered good logical form
for any of your selections, then that should be your answer.  Use of
"da" in my book should match up pretty well with logical notation.

Or maybe the question to pc is, how would you quantificationally
represent each of Jorge's choices, and we should make the Lojban match
those formulations.

lojbab