[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [But it is all standard stuff, some things come to be referent of terms by brute force, some by calculation -- and the difference is precisely in what the terms are: descriptions v names and 'le'. Given that things come into the reference heap in different ways, it seems natural to expect that they get pulled out in different ways -- by brute force or by calculation, say]
I don't see why that seems so natural to you. To me it seems natural
that how they came into the reference is not relevant to how they get
pulled out.
What is the advantage of taking the way they come to be referents into
account, as opposed to just taking into account the simple fact that
they are referents?
> [Well, it wears a difference on its face to start with and that needs to be accounted for. We need to trace back what 'lo broda' means in a logically primitive language -- or rather what 'ro lo broda' means back there -- and see what works out. Presumably, the route will be different from that for 'ko'a' and probably even from 'ko'a go'i broda'. If not, then the symbolism is seriously misleading.]
(Do you mean "ko'a goi lo broda"?)
"ro lo broda cu brode" is just an instance of the more general "ro
<sumti> cu brode":
ro lo broda cu brode
= ro me lo broda cu brode
= ro da poi ke'a me lo broda zo'u da brode
[= ro da zo'u ganai da me lo broda gi da brode]
What is misleading about the symbolism?
>>> Sumti refer to things in a variety of ways and quantifiers naturally take these differences into account.
>>
>> Why should sumti refer to things in a variety of ways? The obvious
>> starting point is that they refer to things period. It is the job of
>> the quantifier, not of the sumti, to specify how those referents
>> relate to other referents.
>
> [But the question is, how do these referents relate to the referring expression.]
We can (and do) specify that, but why should that be relevant to how
they then relate to other referents?
>> But it seems to me that what you are introducing is not just
>> plural quantification, but plural quantification plus some other
>> information contained in sumti besides its referents.
>
> [Yes, because plural quantification, taken alone is clearly wrong.]
If you say so. But I don't see what's wrong with it. It is what it is,
neither right nor wrong.
>> If "ro" is singular, it quantifies over
>> the set of referents. If "ro" is plural, it also quantifies over the
>> same set of referents (but in the way that plural quantifiers do it).
>> The things over which they quantify are the same things in both cases.
>
> [But, as you point out, not in the same way. And the differences there create the problems you allude to, getting pluralities where only singularity is wanted (and probably conversly).]
When singular quantification is wanted, we should use a singular
quantifier. When plural quantification is wanted, we should use a
plural quantifier.
>> If we use singular quantification, it is the referents of the terms
>> that instantiate bound variables, but only one referent at a time.
>> With plural quantification too, it is the referents of the terms that
>> instantiate bound variables except in this case more than one referent
>> can instantiate at the same time.
>
> [Precisely. So, if a term has a plurality of referents, it cannot instantiate a variable which has only one referent.]
How can you say "precisely" and then conclude the opposite of what I wrote?
It is the referents of the term, not the term, that instantiate the
variable, in both cases. The referents of a plural term can
instantiate a singular variable, one at a time. The referents of a
plural term can instantiate a plural variable, one or more at a time.
> [How did we get off on this rather banal discussion? I am still trying to figure out what xorlo means and, as usual, keep getting assurances that it is just what it seems to be, followed by claims that amount to its being something totally different.]
This discussion has nothing or very little to do with xorlo, as far as
I can tell. It started because I said "ro" has to be (it is most
convenient for it to be) the singular universal quantifier, and you
apparently think it ought to be the plural universal quantifier.
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.