* Friday, 2011-12-09 at 12:24 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 8:39 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yes, every particular quantifier ( and universal, for that matter) is the same in function, but surely not in content, a {su'o plise} in one sentence points to different apples from that in another sentence. And similarly for a universal, if we are restricting our domain to just the immediately relevant groups, as seems to be the (unacknowledged) case here.
>
> Is that also what bothers you, that a predicate may have different
> extensions in different instances of use due to domain of discourse
> shifts? This is a separate issue, and then you should also be worried
> about "la .djan. .e la .pol. cu prami la .meris." expanding as "la
> .djan. cu prami la .meris. .i je la .pol. cu prami la .meris.", since
> we can conceive of contexts in which "la .meris." has different
> referents in the expanded form but not in the collapsed form. The
> helper smelter rules assume a fixed domain of discourse so that "su'o
> plise" (or "ro plise", or "no plise") keeps the same domain every
> time.
Another side-issue (which I maybe shouldn't mention but will anyway) is
what {PA plise} abbreviates. Is it short for {PA da poi plise} where
{da} isn't already bound - which saves at least two syllables and saves
us having to bind a new da? Or is it short for {PA lo plise} - which
just saves one syllable? The usage here, lojbanic history and the
demands of efficiency all point towards the former, but the gadri
proposal currently states the latter.
If that change is to be reverted, I think it would be best to do it
sooner rather than later.
Martin
Attachment:
pgp5TXprdellF.pgp
Description: PGP signature