Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 17/10/2011 02:55:
>>
>> But the challenge is to explain why the apparently nonsensical form
>> has this sensical sense.
>
> The challenge for a logical language is to find a sensical form that is not
> repetitious -- given that the essential goal of a logical language is to
> have sensical forms without natlang ambiguity but without greater verbosity
> than natlangs require.

Donkey sentences don't seem to be ambiguous though, so if there's a
good explanation for them (and I think there has to be one, since they
are probably a feature of any natlang, not just a quirk of English)
then there would be no reason not to allow them in a logical language.

But back to your challenge, my feeling too is that the "most" case is
not reducible to a form that is both not repetitious and quantifies
over instances of donkeys/money. So I can only do it by cheating. If
you allow me to lexicalize or abstract the money/donkeys away, then:
"If you sponsor me, I will probably spend the money on drugs", "Most
donkey-owners beat their donkeys". So that's like "most people pick
their noses", where it is presupposed that donkey-owners own donkeys
just like it is presupposed that people have noses. Or similarly with
kinds.

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.