Are you thinking about {ro mu'ei} (http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/mu%27ei)?
mu'o mi'e .arpis.On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:la .aionys. cu cusku di'e
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com<mailto:blindbravado@gmail.com>> wrote:
The problem with this is that we don't have mechanisms for
explicitly handling the universe of discourse. Anything you talk
about is automatically bound within the hidden variable "the
universe of discourse", and you can only indirectly influence what
is in this domain. "Everything that has ever been at any location in
the universe at any point in time" is implicitly "Everything that
... and is also in the universe of discourse" by default.
Another example of this is the approach to what outer quantifiers
should mean. Assuming we've come to some agreement on what the
universe of discourse is for the moment, should {ci da} mean
"exactly three things" as the CLL proclaims? The way I understand
what you're saying, you would think that it shouldn't, and instead
there should be another PA for "exactly", and without that addition
{ci da} should be something like "at least three, and probably not
tremendously larger than three". At least as an outer quantifier; in
{lo cacra be li ci} it would be more like "close to three, possibly
with some error on either side". Am I right here?
No. I think it should mean exactly three. The difference is that I think
"exactly three" should only be considered within context. If we're
talking about the house next door, and I say {ci prenu} = {ci da poi
prenu}, it should mean that there are exactly three people in the
context of the house next door, not that there are exactly three people,
in the whole of time and space, real and imagined, etc..., whatever the
scope of "universe of discourse" is.
I'm not sure you're saying this, but "ci prenu cu broda" does not mean that "there are exactly three people in the universe period", it means "there are exactly three people in the universe that broda", which is a big difference. Even without much context (though a certain tense and place is almost always automatically assumed), such da-based statements are not as extreme as some some seem to have claimed in the past and also in this thread, since there is always an the additional restriction that is the bridi they are contained in.
Your pretty much jives with what I mean about contextual determinism.
BUT, there's apparently disagreement as to the scope, since, to give a recent example, {ci prenu cu nanmu}, according to at least one person, means "there are exactly three people that are male in the entirety of the universe of discourse". The problem here is obviously what the universe of discourse is, which is where the disagreement seems to stem from.
I firmly assert that this "universe" should be determined by context, which has the effect of making {PA GISMU} roughly equivalent to {PA lo GISMU} in all cases.
Others seem to be of the view that the "universe" should be "the whole of everything, real and imagined, in any possible world, .....", which renders DA practically useless IMO.
And there are still other who think the universe should be somewhere between the two.
Tangentially relevant to this discussion, how would one say "in all possible worlds" anyway? I seem to remember there's a cmavo for this, but I can't recall what it is.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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.
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
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.
--
--
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.