[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers
The myth of the default quantifiers for descriptions arose from a number of
logical mistakes: choice of set theories, restrictions on quantification, limits
on what could be said about a set -- all of them reasonable in 1955, perhaps
less so in 1989, certainly not now. The set theory was Cantorian, which
introduces a new entity, a set, totally different from its members between the
members and the world. Traditionally, sets cannot do the sorts of things their
members can -- unless those members are also sets. And quantifiers in the old
theory allowed only singular instantiations. So, to represent anything more
than a single ordinary object, the old system required a single object, a set,
to stand in for the things. But then, since a set couldn't do any normal thing,
like eat an apple, a way needed to be found to get back to the members again and
that was by external quantifiers, which (with a little fiddling) could pull
members out of a set to act in normal ways. This, however, created the problem
of collective action, a several thing acting together, carrying a piano or
surrounding a building. This could not be represented by the set itself, so it
had to be something done with the members of the set extracted and then combined
again, in a way we never did get done satisfactorily. xorxes has always insisted
that intuitively there was a natural way to cover all this but had long failed
to articulate a coherent theory about it, though not for want of trying.
Eventually, however, he found a solution which satisfied all the requirements:
plural quantification (and reference), wherein terms referred to several things
and quantifiers could be instantiated to several things at once. and so no
problem in a set doing ordinary things, its members acting together. We still
-- but more easily -- extract members by quantification to act individually.
There remain a few question -- present from the beginning -- about just what is
required for acting collectively in specific cases, but the general result is
clear. With all this now the underlying logic in place of the old, the old
comments about descriptions and the like becomes unnecessary. To sum up: 'lo
broda' refers to brodas acting collectively (or some L-set of brodas), initial
quantifiers then extract individuals to act individually. No quantifier is a
default or assumed, because it is not assumed that lo broda are acting
individually. To insist there is always such a quantifier is to reintroduce the
problem of collective v. individual actions in the form just eliminated.
----- Original Message ----
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 5:07:53 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers
2011/5/1 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I was thinking about this earlier today and came to a realization. If
>> xorlo says that there are no default quantifiers for {lo} then wouldn't {no}
>> be a reasonable possibility for the assumed quantifier?
>
> No, there isn't an assumed quantifier either.
>
>> e.g. {mi citka lo plise}. {lo plise} has no outer quantifier (implicit or
>> explicit), but I suspect that most people will pick up from context that I
>> in fact {citka pa lo su'opa plise} or something like it.
>
> It will depend on the context, but as an isolated sentence I would
> translate it as "I eat apples".
That would be my English translation too. Unsatisfactorily so, due to
the grammatical constraint in English where "I eat apple." would too
often make little natural sense for the native speakers.
Number-unmarked equivalents of "I eat apple." are however perfectly
valid and common in some natlangs such as Japanese: "ringo" (jpn) by
itself means "an apple" or "apples", which optional numerals can tell
apart; and, just like what you pointed out below, "boku-wa ringo-o
taberu" (mi lo plise cu citka), where the number of "ringo" is
unmarked, never refers to zero apple.
>> So if context can change the assumptions that the tecusku makes about the
>> secusku, then couldn't one of those assumptions be {no lo cukta} since there
>> is no proscribed default?
>
> No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka" you can't
> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if
> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand that
> you mean "mi citka no lo plise".
.ie
> Here is an example where "su'o" fails:
>
> lo ci nanmu ca'o bevri lo pipno.
> "Three men are carrying a piano."
>
> It would not occur to me to conclude that at least one of the three
> men is carrying a piano, my assumption would be that they are all
> three doing it together.
You don't mean "mass" by "doing it together", do you?
There still seems to be some sense that the default PA for any
"no"-less sumti is "su'o" (since "no nai" = "su'o") as well as that
the default NA for any "na"-less bridi is "ja'a" (since "na nai" =
"ja'a").
mu'o
--
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.