[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo
WTF? 'su'o' is not a quantifier, only a cardinal? But cardinals are precisely quantifiers (whence the "quant"). I am not sure what the "illocutionary force" of a quantifier might be either ; that force usually applies to utterances as a whole. If you mean that 'su'o' here acts a particular quantifier, rather than as simply giving the size of the assembly -- and that it should do the opposite -- I don't see the point. It explicitly governs a variable, which looks like a quantifier to me and the whole idea of this rewrite (insofar as it has a purpose) is to pin the 'lo' expression down to a referent. If 'su'o' is merely a cardinal, then 'da' is unmarked and therefore a particularly bound variable, which is equivalent to 'su'o da' anyhow. I see that you wanted the variable bound outside the illocution, but that is exactly missing &'s point, that the difference between 'le' and 'lo' is in whether the referent was assigned before or in the assertion (or
whatever). The quantifier is external and real in both cases.
Ah, what a fine mess! I don't suppose that 'su'o' is a problem, since covers all the cases in an "or" fashion, from which only the right ones need survive. On the other hand, the fact that terms have plural reference and are what quantifiers come down to more or less forces quantifiers to have plural reference as well. But in the case of 'ro' this almost always yields the wrong results (and it gets worse with numeric quantifiers). And shifting over to bunches doesn't help at all, but makes the problem more obvious (if possible). Okay, so we need a (rarely used) plural universal quantifier. Do we need an explicitly singular -- or plural -- particular quantifier? Not so obviously; I can't think off hand of a case where singularity or plurality was so important but not explicitly stated.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:39:46 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have it right except that the noi/poi distinction is not now needed (and, indeed, the semantically irrelevant -- though pragmatically important -- broda can be dropped altogether for 'lo'). I am not sure what is wrong with the internal 'su'o' for 'lo' -- pragmatic considerations or are you saying that there is no 'su'o' in the background of 'lo'?
The internal su'o is pretty harmless, it is not even a quantifier,
it's just a cardinality. But in treating "lo broda cu brode" as
"(illocutionary:) su'o da poi broda cu brode" you are saying that "lo"
has the illocutionary force of a quantifier, an outer quantifier, a
true quantifier, not the so called "inner quantifier" which is not
really a quantifier at all.
> I'm not clear about why we need two quantifiers with plural reference (I think plural quantification just follows -- or reference follows from quantification). Plural whatever replaces singulary seamlessly -- singulary just being a (not so) special case and one that need not ever be explicitly called upon.
Well, suppose {A, B, C} is the set of my friends, and I want to say
that each of my friends owns one car. With ordinary singular "ro", I
just say:
ro lo pendo be mi cu ponse pa karce
Which just says that:
A owns one car.
B owns one car.
C owns one car.
but if "ro" is plural, then I am also saying that:
A & B own one car.
A & C own one car.
B & C own one car.
A & B & C own one car.
i.e. "any one or more of my friends own one car". A lot more cars are
now being owned. In general, the plural "ro" says too much. We could
still say just what we want by restricting:
ro lo pendo be mi be'o poi pa mei cu ponse pa karce
so in that sense we don't "need" the singular "ro", but such
restrictions sound ugly and unnatural. In terms of usability the
singular "ro" is the one that we most often want. For su'o it is not
so clear, but having a plural "su'o" and no plural "ro" would also be
odd, so that's why I say that we would need at least two "ro" if
quantifiers were plural.
(Sorry about the empty post earlier.)
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.