Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'

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

That's an interseting question, which is probably what this all should lead up to.  I don't know the  answer.  We are caught between the need for natural expression and the need to be careful to say what we mean to say.  Given that the natural expression turns out not to mean what it is meant to mean, how do we then go looking for either how to say it in the present system (going into the infinite loop involved in defining quantifiers in terms of terms defined in terms of quantifiers doesn't seem at all plausible) or how to change the system to make it give the right results in some more natural way.  Given the choice between singular and plural quantifiers (and references), there does not seem to be a direct way.  Perhaps new quantifiers are needed, perhaps new ways of applying quantifiers, perhaps new ways of defining terms (or new primitive notions of some terms).  But the quantifiers have long histories and have proved adequate over centuries and in
 mathematical tests.  The same could be said also fro the applications and for at least some definitions of terms.  So the problem seems to be a more underlying one, perhaps the very notion of trying (with, as & notes, remarkable lack of success) to represent logical language in a speakable language and certainly with this particular approach, with its inherited flaws from several generations of workers.  While it is the bugfuckers' (or whatever's) job to describe the present language, I can hope that as soon as (and preferably while) they do that, work will begin on a corrected version.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 7:46:36 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] About plural 'ro'

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the reductio ad absurdum.  What gives the right result in this system is so remote from the question at hand as to demonstrate the total inadequacy of the system.

So:

     ro da poi bevri lo co'e cu ba se cnemu
     "Anyone who carries the thing will be rewarded."

would be close to the question at hand, except it gives the wrong result, while:

     ro da poi me lo bevri be lo co'e cu ba se cnemu
     "Anyone who is among the carriers of the thing will be rewarded."

is remote from the question at hand, even though it gives the right
result? Just adding three little words makes the system totally
inadequate?

OK. What's an adequate system then?

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.