Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Familiar Feces

21 (iirc) versions of 'e' all amounting to logical "and". Arose because the use of one such  ('ga... gi') was incorrect and another ('gu'a ... gu'i') was required to do the same work.  The others are a nice point as well, of course, though with a different motivation.

The best one this week is to incorporate the the whole into a single line 'ro da broda' (roughly, since this is a sentence), much like the standard system (AxFx).  It has been discussed to death, but your move assumes that there are no restricted quantifiers in Lojban, which is at least historically false.

Goodness, I thought we did have plural quantifiers and that was at least part of what xorlo was ultimately about.  The point here however, is that 'poi' goes with an internal quantifier in the construction of 'lo' qhilw 'noi' is an external quantifier in the construction of 'le'.

Only if you promise never to use it again.

As you say, a change in the official rules but not in practice -- except for a bunch of folk arguing endlessly about whether 'lo pavyseljirna cu blabi' is true or false id there are no unicorns.

Well, in one sense, "something" ('su'o') was always plural, but I suppose you mean directly.  Again, I thought that was that xorlo was finally about.  To be sure, I prefer (from habit) "bunch" talk, but, since they are the same thing, plural reference is fine too.  Sorry about the "a".

Overall, then, I guess I was taking an optimistic reading on the situation with plural reference / L-sets.  I thought it was stare decisis and, in fact, it is either not settled or still actively resisted.  I wonder why? (not enough people have had enough logic to have my engrained habits, and I took to it fairly directly -- barring some weird thing McKay said about restrcted  quantifiers and about the whole thing being bright shiny new)


----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 4:48:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ah, how this takes me back to see that, despite protestations to the contrary, SOS still floats around.

"Save Our Ship"? "Save Our Souls"?

> Item: the proliferation of connectives,all of which mean the same thing but have to be infinitely subdivided by the narrow context in which they occur (the largest single item in the "There must be a better way" folder for LoCCan3)

Do you mean jo'u/ju'e/fa'u/joi/ce/ce'o/jo'e/ku'a/pi'u, most of which
mean "and", and the ones that don't are more or less useless? I would
have to agree, but I'm not sure how it relates to the present
discussion.

> Item: expanding 'ro da poi broda cu brode' to 'ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode' which, unless we have a new, better, way to express restricted quantification (I can think of several but haven't seen any mentioned lately), is just flat wrong , failing in the case where there are no brodas (original false, expansion true).

Discussed to death already, but you are welcome to mention the several
new, better ways you can think of.

> Item: misapplying the notion of quantification out of context, by wrongly writing the two cases involved (assuming, for only the moment, that 'zo'e' etc. have anything to do with 'lo' and 'le').(illocution goes before the quantifier in the first case).

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that "poi" always
requires a quantifier, whether explicit or implicit, that is under the
scope of the illocutionary force. I'm not totally adverse to the idea,
as I'm not totally happy with a quantifier-less "poi". (But I also
have my reservations, because we don't have plural quantifiers.)

> Item: Good ol' Mr. Broda, a notion even yet more obscure than 'zo'e' (or even 'zo'e'e'),  Not only is it never explained but it changes to fit whatever argument xorxes is presenting at the moment.  In this case it seems to be a generic thing for now, as if there were generic things rather than general ways of talking about ordinary things (that is, as if the problem were with gadri rather than with sentence modifiers of some sort).  But it will turn up again in some other disguise if another argument comes along.

Forget I even mentioned it.

> I get the general impression that what is presently being claimed is that all xorlo did was drop the implicit quantifiers on descriptions, since everything else seems to be unchanged.

Maybe not all, but that's the significant part, yes.

> Suspect this is technically true -- totally for the external quantifiers and structurally for the internal ones, although 'le broda cu brode' and 'lo broda cu brode' do both entail that something brodes

Only if "something" can be a plural "something". So "lo prenu cu se
culno lo klaji", "people fill the streets", does entail that
"something" fills the streets, namely people, but not that any one
person fills the streets.

> and the latter that at least of those things is a broda.

Well, the "something" that brodes has to be broda, yes, though not
necessarily "a broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


      

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.