Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <Besides, {na'e bo ro da} is "na'e bo (roda)", not "(na'e bo ro) da".>
>
> If you say so, it's too hard to do by hand.  I wonder what it means.

I've no idea. Like so many other things in the language, {na'e bo}
was worked out assuming sumti phrases had single referents, and the
quantifier cases were not taken into account. It may very well
be meaningless.

> A+  ro lo su'o broda cu brode
> E+  no lo su'o broda cu brode
> I+  su'o lo broda cu brode
> O+  me'iro lo broda cu brode = da'asu'o lo broda cu brode
>
> A- ro lo broda cu brode
> E- no lo broda cu brode
> I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode
> O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode>
>
> I agree that using {su'o} for either I- or O- is nonsense and that the best
> way to deal with them is probably to leave the negations unresolved (see
> below).  The rest of your examples fail to indicate the difference between 
> +
> and -, since the status of the two formulations, {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o
> broda} are, in that respect, exactly the same.

If {ro} can be {no}, then {ro lo ro broda} is not
the same as {ro lo su'o broda}.

{[su'o] lo ro broda} is indeed the same as {[su'o] lo su'o broda}
in any case.

> So, I do worry about whether
> {me'iro} and {da'a su'o} are quite right, since both seem  to allow {no}.

They do allow it. Does O+ entail I+ in your understanding?
It doesn't in mine. In other words, does "some don't" entail
"some do"?

"Contradictories":

> <roda = naku me'iroda
> noda = naku su'oda
> su'oda = naku noda
> me'iroda = naku roda>
>
> Not perfectly clear what is going on here, combining + quantifier 
> expressions
> with variables (intended for - quantification), and the negations seem
> indifferent to import.

They would still be valid if {da} is changed to {broda}:

ro broda = naku me'iro broda
no broda = naku su'o broda
su'o broda = naku no broda
me'iro broda = naku ro broda

> <"Complementaries":
> roda = da'anoda
> noda = da'aroda
> su'oda = da'ame'iroda
> me'iroda = da'asu'oda>
>
> Same problem.  I'm not sure what to call these in traditional terms, so
> "complementaries" is as good as any -- the {da'a} notion is not classical.

{da'a} can also be changed to a postposed {naku} to make it more
classical:

ro broda = no broda naku
no broda = ro broda naku
su'o broda = me'iro broda naku
me'iro broda = su'o broda naku

> <"Duals":
> roda = naku su'oda naku
> noda = naku me'iroda naku
> su'oda = naku roda naku
> me'iroda = naku noda naku>
>
> These are duals all right, but they have only a tenuous connection with the
> situation in hand, since they lack import notation, which makes all the
> difference.  so, whether the identitis hold or not cannot be determined -- 
> in
> the obvious readings, with the import the same on both sides, none of them
> do.

I did put a warning saying that these hold only if {ro} can be {no}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com