2009/9/9 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Squark Rabinovich<top.squark@gmail.com> wrote:
> lo brodaácan mean any quantifier applied to brodaá,
I already have to object at this point because "lo broda" doesn't have
a quantifier at all (assuming we are talking of outer quantifiers, the
so called "inner quantifiers" are not strictly quantifiers in the
logic sense). "lo broda" is a constant, so in logical notation "lo
prenu cu bajra" would be something like B(p), while a quantified
_expression_ like "su'o prenu cu bajra" will be "Ex P(x): B(x)". This
may not seem important for such simple examples, but it does make a
difference for more complex cases.
I don't understand. Consider the sentence lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno The English translation is "a man / the man / men / the men carry the piano(s)". What does this sentence mean? By itself, it means nothing. With the addition of context, it gets a meaning. This meaning depends on the context. The possible meanings are
"A man carries the piano(s)"
"Some men carry the piano(s)"
"Many men carry the piano(s)"
"Most men carry the piano(s)"
"All men carry the piano(s)"
et cetera, and also variants with "the", although why would we use lo rather than le for these?
Each of these meaning contains a certain quantifier (in the fuzzy sense, since "many" isn't a precise number). Thus the semantics of the sentence contains a context-dependent quantifier.
> masses of brodaá(or even
> sets of brodaá?! that would be weird since a set is an object of entirely
> different nature).
Sets are indeed things of an entirely different nature, and that's why
I don't really use them at all. For "loi" there are (at least) two
views: (1) it merely indicates that the predicate for which the sumti
is an argument applies collectively to the referents of the sumti, or
(2) it refers to a new type of entity, a "mass". If "loi" is taken as
(1), then "lo" covers it, in the sense that "lo" is silent on
distributivity and therefore can be used in both the collective or the
distributive cases. If (2), (the "loi = lo gunma be lo" theory) then
"lo" does not cover it, since "loi" refers to a different type of
entity. In practice, it doesn't really matter much which view you use,
pick the one you like most.
I don't understand the practical difference between the views. When I say lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno can it be that the men carry the piano(s) together? If so, what is the difference between that and saying loi nanmu cu bevri ? Does the later imply the relation between the men is stronger than carrying the piano together?
> For example, lo nanmu bevri le pipnoácan mean anything from "a man carries
> the piano(s)" or "several groups of men carry the piano(s)" to "all men
> carry the piano(s)". It can also mean "theáman carries the piano(s)".
I don't know about the "several groups" one. The others all seem like
possible readings.
If lo nanmu cu beveri le pipno can mean that the men carry the piano(s) together, then it probably can also mean they carry it/them divided into several groups, which is a middle state between doing it all together and doing it individually. Am I wrong?
> málo broda means "máindividual broda". This is way more specific than the
> previous constructs. Can it also mean "the mábrodaáout of the specific
> broda"?
"mu lo nanmu" doesn't really mean much outside of a full bridi. A
quantifier acts on a full bridi, so you can't tell what it means until
you give a bridi. For example:
mu lo nanmu cu bajra
means: out of all the referents of "lo nanmu", exactly five of them
are such that when x refers to him "x bajra" is true. Without the full
bridi you don't know what you are claiming of exactly five of the
referents of "lo nanmu".
I understand that you have to put in a bridi . I was speaking imprecisely, for brevity's sake. What about mu lo nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? Can they carry the piano(s) together?
> It doesn't
> appear to make much sense to use a non-specific collection of nábrodaá. "a
> person out of some three person" is strange, because why should we care
> about these generic three persons? How are they related to the meaning
> conveyed? For example re lo ci nanmu cu bevri le pipnoá. Two persons are
> carrying piano(s), but what is the relevance of the third? Unless it's a
> specific threesome we have in mind here, in which case, why wouldn't we use
> leá?
Maybe that's why those forms are not used much. Let's say "two out of
three persons who will be chosen at random will do one thing, and the
remaining person will do something else". Maybe a bit contrived, but I
don't have anyone in mind as to who the three persons chosen at random
will be.
I agree it might in principle make sense if an inner incidental relative clause is attached.
> loi brodaámeans... Hmm, I don't see what's the difference between this and
> lo broda
It's impossible to see any difference between "loi broda" and "lo
broda" outside of a bridi. When used as an argument in a bridi, "loi"
indicates that the predicate on that argument place is applied
collectively, while "lo" does not indicate anything one way or the
other.
Consider loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno . Does it mean that the men carry the piano together, as a single group? Or can it refer to several groups? If the later, each group can consist of one individual, in which case we are back to individuals. Hence we get the same thing as with lo . If the former, does it make it the same as pa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ?
> For exampleásu'o re pixa loi
> nanmu cu bevri le pipnoámeans "at least two groups of men exist such that
> 60% of each group carry the piano(s)".
"su'o re pi xa" is "at least 2.6". I think you mean "su'o re lo pi xa
loi nanmu", ńt least two 60%'s of groups of men". Ugh.
Does it mean I can't use a regular outer quantifier and a fractional outer quantifier simultaneously? Do I understand correctly we have inner fraction quantifiers as well?
> I guess that when a group of men
> carries the piano, some men might be entirely uninvolved in carrying the
> piano. This means that the factor unifying these men into a group is
> something beyond them carrying a piano together.
If so, "loi" should not be the way to indicate that they constitute a
group. A selbri meaning ´s a group" should be used.
So now you're saying loi only indicates joint action or joint whatever, not grouping in any other sense. But lo can indicate "joint whatever" as well. What is the difference? Also, what is the meaning of pixa loi nanmu cu bevri le pipno ? "60% of a group of men carry the piano(s)"? But what makes the men a "group"? Not all of them are carrying piano(s), so it has to be something else. However, you also claim loi cannot be used to indicate such an additional group relationship.