Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language)

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

----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:13:49 PM
Subject: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: 
Vote for the Future Global Language)

Robin Lee Powell, On 06/01/2011 19:01:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:52:19PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>> Robin Lee Powell, On 06/01/2011 17:19:
>>> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 05:08:02PM +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In English, logical scope tends to be ambiguous, at least within
>>>> the same clause. So English "not A, B and C" can mean "It is not
>>>> the case that each of A,B,C is the case" or "For each x, where x
>>>> is one of A,B,C, it is not the case that x is the case".
>>>>
>>>> Unless it has been fixed by recent BPFK action, Lojban has
>>>> *exactly the same ambiguity* with regard to logical scope
>>>> between elements that are not explicitly prenexed.
>>>
>>> Show me an example please.
>>
>> "su'o broda ro brode cu brodi"
>>
>> "na ku a bu e by e cy cu broda"
>>
>> Ten years ago these were ambiguous.
>
> You're going to have to hold my hand more than that, I'm afraid.
> Ambiguous how?

In the case of the second one, ambiguous between the two meanings the English 
version has: "It is not the case that A, B and C broda" versus "For each of 
A,B,C it is not the case that it brodas".

But the Lojban isn't ambiguous in this way and hasn't been even in Loglan back 
as far as I can remember.  The fact that I can't remember which way the rule 
runs or what the override technique is doesn't mean they aren't in place.
  
>> Xorxes proposed a rule that items in higher clauses have scope
>> over items in lower clauses (i.e. that items export to the prenex
>> of the localmost clause) and that when two items are in the same
>> clause, the leftward element has scope over the rightward. (It's a
>> shame to have to 'pollute' the purely hierarchical structure of
>> logical form with left-to-right order of forms, but it's by far
>> the simplest way to rescue Lojban in its (then) current state.
>> Perhaps the BPFK has made xorxes's rule official, in which case I
>> wonder what happened to the rule about the scope of selbri tcita
>> "na", and to the scope of selbri tcita in general.)
>
> I didn't know that was xorxes' rule; I thought left-to-right
> quantifier scope was in the CLL.  Yes, indeed:
> http://dag.github.com/cll/16/5/ "The rule for dropping the prenex is
> simple: if the variables appear in the same order within the bridi
> as they did in the prenex, then the prenex is superfluous.".
>
> So, I'm probably failing to understand.  Can you please explain it
> like I'm very very stupid?

My mistake -- failure of memory. Presumably the then-unofficial rule was to 
generalize CLL's left-to-right rule for all elements in the bridi (with the 
possible exception of some or all selbri tcita) and to make explicit the rule 
that things export to the localmost rather than outermost prenex (when you have 
one bridi within another).

**I also don't see what your example has to do with the rule you miss: since 
ancient Loglan times the rule is that the quantifiers come out in order and here 
there is not problems of subordinate clauses.

--And.

-- 
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.