Ordinarily, the scope of a quantifier in an abstraction is restricted to that abstraction and moving it outside is a logical no-no (as though the UD of one world were the same for all). Now {ni} is a strange abstraction and may be have differently, but until that case gets made we have to say we must take it internally. So, we have the case that my liking for A is 3 (on a 5-point scale) and for B is 0 (bottom), while you give both A and B 4 (top). So, in fact, I don't like either of them more than you do. Notice that, in this case at least, moving the quantifier outside doesn't change the result. I suspect this is a problem with the example, but I don't want to fadge up a new one.
From: Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Quantifier exactness
On 7 January 2013 14:55, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
> I meant a translation of the original statement into English. .u'u that I
> wasn't clear.
>
That is the point. I have never seen in any other linguistic
_expression_ an object
like lo ni mi nelci PA da, as far as I can tell. This is why, in the
attempted translation,
the normally ambiguous scope of the natural language quantifier is
forced to long.
I have no intuition about lo ni mi nelci PA da, although I agree with
the axioms that
justify latro'a's reasoning.
mu'o
mi'e .asiz.
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis
> <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 January 2013 12:01, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis
>> > <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What is lacking here is the argument /for/ quantifier inexactness,
>> >> which goes against CLL.
>> >
>> >
>> > Much as I like quantifier exactness as a useful idiosyncrasy in lojban
>> > (and
>> > view adhering to the CLL) as a good default, I find the example given as
>> > an
>> > argument /against/ quantifier exactness (though not an entirely
>> > convincing
>> > one by itself), at least if I take latros's analysis at face value.
>> >
>>
>> I don't see how the example is an argument. It is just that, an example.
>>
>> > The sentence says to me "I, more than you, like one of the two people."
>> > Unless you can give me an intuition for a translation that preserves
>> > exact
>> > quantifier semantics (and just adding "exactly" to the previous
>> > statement
>> > doesn't do it), I'm going to be uneasy about them.
>> >
>>
>> "I, more than you, like one of the two people."
>> {da poi me lo re prenu zo'u mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci da} or
>> {mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci lo [su'o/pa] me lo re prenu}
>>
>> The odd thing with the original example is the quantification within
>> the ni-clause.
>>
>> mu'o
>> mi'e .asiz.
>>
>> --
>> 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 .arpis.
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.