Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilkancu_2, {lo no broda} should be meaningful.

From that definition, I guess that PA should be a member of a countable set, a rational number.
There is no other information about this PA, then it is natural that {lo no broda} is meaningful.

I think the definition works well for natural numbers (i.e. positive integers), anything else is iffy. Even things like "lo pa pi mu broda" I find questionable, if not outright wrong.

Also from a practical point of view, it is better to give {lo no broda} some reasonable meaning:

- lo xo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka
- no

Such a conversation is quite natural, and cannot be replaced by an outer quantifier in a simple way because it involves collectivity and distributivity. It should not be excluded from the language.

I agree that "lo no prenu" in such a context will be naturally interpreted as "no'oi prenu" (the plural "no"). But I doubt that it can be consistently worked into the system. For one thing, you open the door to things that look like referring terms but don't actually refer to anything. (We already have some of those, like "zi'o", but at least they are now confined to KOhA.)

Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more individuals" is misleading for me.

The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural variable" as defined above. This is not my particular way of thinking, but general way of plural logic.

The problem with doing what you suggest, is that whatever term you choose for that in the metalanguage will inevitably find its way into the language at some point, and then in the language it will refer to individuals (as it does refer to meta-individuals in the metalanguage) and you have to start all over with something else. I think "one or more individuals" is healthier. But if you prefer some other terminology there's nothing stopping you from writing up definitions with your preferred point of view.

By the way, based on the fact that {lo broda} is plural constant, another problem occurs.

{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e}, and {zo'e} is defined as unspecific value.

It's defined as "elliptical/unspecified". It has a value or values, they are just not given explicitly.

When {lo broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and contradicts the definition of {zo'e}.

My understanding is that {zo'e} is essentially a free variable, and a plural constant is implicitly substituted when a universe of discourse is given. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the gadri or zo'e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is necessary.

An _expression_ with a free variable doesn't have a truth value, it's not a complete proposition. An _expression_ with "zo'e" is a complete proposition, so zo'e can't be a free variable. "ke'a" and "ce'u" are free variables since the bridi they appear in are incomplete and don't have a truth value by themselves.

mu'o mi'e xorxes