[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] "lo no"
Well, not exactly. The identity of {lo gerku} and {da poi gerku} is certainly
not absolute, as the later cases under quantifiers show. {ci lo gerku} means
something more (or less) than {ci da poi gerku}; the latter says that there are
exactly three things that are dogs, the former that three out of some (otherwise
identified) dogs. Put simply, {lo gerku} is a name-like expressions, with a
fixed reference, {da poi gerku} is a quantifier-and-variable, so without a
referent but only a function in the sentence, an incomplete expression in a way
the first is not. The expansions given for {lo PA gerku} are a little
misleading: nothing is both a dog and a PA-ad in a unified sense. If we take it
that {lo PA gerku} is refers to dogs, as it does, then the dogs referred to form
a PA-ad. If we take it that (lo PA gerku) refers to a PA-ad, then it is
composed of dogs. That is, to make sense of this, we have to think of PA-ads
not as a sort of thing, but as an accounting of things, perhaps {gerku PAmei}
makes better sense that the conjunctive predicate. Assuming that {-mei} is no
longer to be interpreted as a C-set, then there are no nomei and so no
meaningful {lo no broda}, although both {no da gerku} and {no lo gerku} make
perfectly good sense. Consequently, "all of the trained assassins", if taken as
a case of {ro lo broda} excludes the case where there are no trained assassins,
since the use of {lo broda} guarantees that there is at least one (in the
universe of discourse, of course, not necessarily among the things that actually
exist). On the other hand, it is a still-disputed question whether {ro da poi
broda} is compatible with there being no brodas (Lojban seems to say yes, Logic
generally says no at the basic level, but has a complex level which allows it:
taking {ro da poi broda} to mean {ro da ganai da broda gi}). Of course,
grounding the expression in physical reality ("in my pocket" say) does take you
from the conceptual to the existent, at least in ordinary understanding (but it
really depends on how you group things: is it {lo dollars} or {lo dollars in my
pocket}?).
----- Original Message ----
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 5:56:57 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no"
On 13 May 2011 16:44, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look, I have to agree with Jonathan. This discussion has gone on quite
> too long. We disagree. That's it. You believe that lo implies there have
> to be za'uno elements, I don't.
You disagree with me without addressing the logical problem on your
part that I intended to point out.
lo gerku = da poi gerku
ci lo gerku = ci da poi gerku
no lo gerku = no da poi gerku
lo ci gerku = da poi gerku je cimei
lo no gerku = da poi gerku je nomei
Every sentence is syntactically valid, but the last one is logically
questionable. You are yet to explain how exactly one could sensibly
mean to refer to something which are both dogs and no dogs without a
contradiction. Or: If you don't think that "lo no gerku" means "da poi
gerku je nomei", please explain why.
I doubt it's just a matter of subjective opinions; there should be
some logical basis upon which our current disagreement can be
resolved. I moved this discussion on to lojban@ for a reason. We
should be clear about this now, so as to not repeat the same confusing
argumentation in the eyes of newbies.
> Of course, since you do believe that, I hope you are prepared,
> because all of the trained assassins I am sending your way are deadly.
> You better start worrying about their cardinality.
"all of the trained assassins" (ro lo broda), given no context, can
mean one thousand (ki'o lo broda) or none (no lo broda) or else. In
any case, it refers to "the trained assassins" (lo broda), something
-- not nothing, not nomei. And the universe of discourse isn't
constrained by the physical reality; it's entirely possible for you to
refer to objects or events which don't manifest in the physical world.
That's how "I'll give you all the dollars in my pocket if you clean
your room" too works; that you won't actually give the dollars in your
pocket doesn't destroy the linguistic reference you make to "the
dollars" in your utterance.
> You've stated your case. I've stated mine. As far as I can tell, we both
> understand each other's POV. My problem with your arguing up to this point
> has simply been you've been trying to tell me what what *I've* "intended" to
> say, and that's what I object to.
Is quantification in Lojban not meant to be unambiguous when made
explicit? I've been trying to tell you what your zero-quantification
may represent in accordance with the jbocre considerations given to
the gadri, namely BPFK's xorlo.
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.