* Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 12:04 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Oops, I was working with the wrong meaning. It's meant to be:
> > there's a set of critics such that no critic in the set admires
> > themself or anything outside of the set.
>
> But you also need that each of them admires every other critic in the
> set, right?
It seems this wasn't the intention, actually (not that I expect it to
matter much). I'm basing this on Boolos' discussion of the sentence in
his article on plural quantification "To be is to be the value of
a variable (or to be some values of some variables)".
I forgot to declare the set non-empty, though, which is obviously
necessary for non-triviality.
> su'oi da poi xaurpai zo'u ro de poi me da cu sinma ro di poi me da .e
> nai de ku'o .e no di poi na me da
Not bad. So with the intended meaning of the sentence, it could be just
{su'oi da poi xaurpai zo'u ro de poi me da cu sinma de na .e no na me da}
Now... when {da} is plurally bound, perhaps {PA da} *shouldn't* be
understood as requantification, but rather as short for {PA me da} - so
this could be shortened further to
{su'oi da poi xaurpai zo'u ro da cu sinma ri na.e no na me da}
And if we don't mind using BY, we can drop the {da}:
{su'oi xaurpai zo'u ro me xy sinma ri na.e no na me xy}
Not bad!
We really ought to have plural quantifiers.
> I guess Lojban lacks a pair of reciprocal pronouns like "one another"
> in English. It would be interesting to see if it's possible to
> rigorously define a pronoun such that "su'oi xaurpai cu sinma ri'ai
> po'o" means that.
I guess we do need some {ro}s in there if we're to specify that it's the
individual critics who are sinmaing and sesinmaing.
So I don't see a semantics of {po'o} which would fit.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpmGilQ2AvRU.pgp
Description: PGP signature