Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers

If you do assume thatt lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno has an implicit ro in front, you will misunderstand what it says.
no is not a number like the others, being defined by a negation, though it does represent a digit. used on an argument, it affects the whole proposition (as does every quantifier), in this case by putting a negation somewhere in it.
Incidentally, whether you take noun phrases as referring to objects or L-sets, no is not a permissible internal quantifier.
The apple eating examples are not equivalent, since 'lo plise' in one need not have the same referent as 'plise' in the second. In the second 'plise' refers to all apples (in the domain), in the first 'lo plise' refers to apples which may be contextually specified (less than all). So the second imples the first but not conversely. (What do you mean by "are teh statements the same?" other than "do they mean the same thing" -- clearly they are different sentences.)

From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 11:04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers

mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because there are no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use context to assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno})

And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like {pa}, {re}, {su'o}, or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quantifier of a sumti can directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't.

I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feels strange. I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise} and {mi citka no plise} really are identical (I know that the meanings of the statements are the same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other)

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". It doesn't even have to be about any
specific occasion. I suspect that "I eat exactly one of the at least
one apples" is not one of the most common interpretations.

> Furthermore, if I
> said {mi nelci lo nu tcidu .i mi ponse lo cukta} I would think that people
> would read that as something like {mi ponse so'o lo so'i cukta} or something
> like it.

I would read it as "I like reading. I own books." I don't think I
would read it as "I own several of many books".

> 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".

> Either the default quantifiers of {lo} should be {su'o} or it should be
> reasonable to assume that {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse lo cukta}
> could be understood as {mi xebni lo nu tcidu .ija'ebo mi ponse no lo cukta}.

But "lo" has no quantifiers, default or otherwise. Why do you want to
force one on it?

> In my mind the latter is an unsafe assumption and I suspect that most
> tecusku would respond with something like {.ue do cusku lo du'u brodado na
> nelci lo nu tcidu .iku'i do ji'a cusku lo nu do ponse lo cukta .i va'o lo nu
> broda kei mi sruma lo nu na brode}. Therefore, I argue that even if the
> grammar claims that {lo} has no default quantifiers, people read lojban with
> the assumption that {lo}'s implicit quantifiers are {su'o}.
> Thoughts?

I at least don't.

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.

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.