* Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 05:41 -0600 - Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>:
> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities which
> > > > individually broda?
> > >
> > > No, just loi. lo is completely non specific.
> >
> > I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but...
>
> Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whether the
> referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J. Cowan
> said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to specifically
> refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cmavo or cmavo
> cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}.
>
> {lo} is completely generic, and distributive or collective reference when
> using only {lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadni cu
> sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju},
> but distributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether
> those which {tadni} are distributive or collective.
OK. I would like to semi-formalise this understanding as follows:
The interpretation of a sumti (or more accurately: a sumti-6) consists
of a set of referents and a distributivity flag. The distributivity flag
has three settings: Distributive, Collective, and Ambiguous. When used
in a bridi, the bridi is respectively claimed of each referent, or of
the referents as a gunma, or ambiguously between the two options.
{lo broda} and {loi broda} both return Sumti6 whose referents each
satisfy broda; the difference is just that the flag is set to Ambiguous
in the first and Collective in the second. lu'a and lu'o reset the flag,
but have no other effect. When quantifying (non-fractionally) over
a sumti, the flag is ignored.
Does this accurately capture the intention of xorlo?
> > all I'm claiming is that
> > {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies
> > distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversial?
>
> How could it be controversial?
Good.
My point then was that the following three assertions are inconsistent:
(i) {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology
(ii) {ro loi broda cu broda} is a tautology
(iii) loi broda == lo gunma be lo broda (i.e. have the same referents)
Indeed, we can derive a contradiction with broda set to {na'e gunma}:
ro loi na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (ii))
ro lo gunma be lo na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (iii))
su'o gunma cu na'e gunma (by (i))
> Also, IIRC, if you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually need
> lo. ({PA lo broda} = {PA broda})
(sure, I'm just leaving the 'lo' in to emphasise that the {lo broda} in
{ro lo broda} has a meaning of its own, with the {ro} then quantifying
over its referents)
Martin
Attachment:
pgpf4LwYBg9jC.pgp
Description: PGP signature