[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2



On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:42 PM, 'John E. Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Well, I am not too sure about the distinction between singular {ci} and plural, which plural reference was supposed to solve but managed to multiply.

With singular "ci", you try all the values from the domain as arguments of the quantified bridi one at a time, and the quantifier says that it will come out true for exactly three of those tries.

With one version of plural "ci", you try the values three at a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true at least once.

With another version of plural "ci", you try the values three at a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true exactly once.

With yet another version, you try the values in all possible combinations any number at a time, and the quantifier says it will come out true exactly three times.

There may be other versions of plural "ci", I don't know, but I think the useful one is the first one.
 
 Still, there does seem to be a problem here.  I thought that perhaps we had the set "For three men, I want them to run", "I want three men for to run" and "I want for three men to run'.  But the second was still suspect, since it seemed to need another {tu'a} to come out right.

Perhaps making use of the always forgotten third place of "djica": although that might then involve donkey-sentencing.
 
 Another possibility is that, since these levels are generated by places where a matrix is inserted, that the relevant level here is not such a case even though treated as the same in Lojban.  That is, referring to an event or proposition is not a case of picking a salient object with the property of being an event or proposition, but a different sort of move, as it typically is in logic: not /x^p^x, but simply ^p^.  This removes the opportunity for another quantifier, if I have got the pattern down.

Yes, but you could always add it back with "lo me".
 
 {ci da zo'u mi djica du'u (I would have thought nu, but my theology is happier with propositions anyhow) da co'e}  vs {mi djica du'u ci da co'e} with no other places to put in quantifier.  All very unLojbanic, of course, but we're well past that objection by now.

That has been debated before. It was never very clear to me why NU was chosen to transform a bridi into a selbri rather than into a sumti, which is where the overwhelming majority of their use is. So instead of using "lo NU" all the time we would only have needed to use "me NU" in the relatively rare occasions when a selbri is wanted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.