[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers



On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I understood your following statement:
>> 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".
> to mean that putting {no sumti} in a bridi effectively negates the selbri
> such that {mi citka no plise} = {mi na citka ??? plise}.

"mi citka no plise" is exactly equivalent to "mi na citka su'o plise".

no ... = naku su'o ...

But I never said this was equivalent to "mi na citka lo plise", Indeed
I've been denying all the time that "lo"="su'o".

> And the general point that I was trying to make was that when we say that
> {lo} has no default quantifiers what we've done is merely shifted the
> assumption of what we're talking about to context.
> Like you said {lo broda} = {zo'e noi ke'a broda}.  I understand {zo'e} as
> meaning "omitted sumti which you may or may not be able to pick up on from
> context".  So if I see {mi viska zo'e} I would assume something like {mi
> viska su'o zo'e}.

Even if you assume that, that doesn't make them equivalent. I gave an
example where the assumption would lead you astray.

If I say "mi viska do" you can safely assume that "mi viska su'o da"
is true. That does not make "do" equivalent to "su'o da".

> I certainly wouldn't assume {no} or something exotic (but
> grammatical) like {ka'o}.

I still don't understand why you so desperately want to assume there
is some hidden quantifier there, when there is no need to. (Actually,
I think I do understand why. CLL gives the impression that every sumti
has to have some quantifier in front and so you are trying to force
one on every sumti.)

> If {zo'e} implicitly forces a listener to make
> some assumptions then so too does {lo}

Some assumptions yes, but not about implicit quantifiers.

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.