[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Martin Bays, On 18/10/2011 04:31:
* Monday, 2011-10-17 at 01:40 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
(i) with this definition, {loi} is very close to Chierchia's version of
the iota operator, which is his explanation of "the": when applied to
a predicate in a domain, it gives the maximal plurality in the domain
which satisfies the predicate if there is a unique such (as there is
with a distributive predicate like a noun). For this to coexist with
normal quantification, the domain should be some glorked subdomain of
the full domain.
Why some glorked subdomain, rather than just the full domain?
Having it with the full domain would essentially replicate the
functionality of {pi ro broda}.
Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean? I find it hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from ro.
So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means
precisely the same thing as "the lions".
I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's
a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point.
Just making a veridiciality distinction? Or specificity too?
I don't know how sclerotic my thinking is, but I'm thinking "the lions" is {lo co'e voi cinfo} (or maybe also your {loi co'e voi cinfo}) and "le broda" is "lo co'e voi broda" (and "lei broda" "lei co'e voi broda").
--And.
--
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.