Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers

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

Yucky-poo!  I thought we agreed at some point never to use "mass" again; it has 
been used over the years for at least four clearly different things and at least 
as many that were not clear at all.  All of the useful notions have been spun 
off in different ways now, so there is no need for this term.  The role of 'lo' 
is one of the old senses of "mass", now clearly explicated: this"mass" does 
something if all the members participate in doing it (what counts as 
participation varies with specific activities and is open to some fights).  




----- 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.