[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
For "tu'a", it is crucial that it doesn't let quantifiers and
connectives out since it's very purpose is to create an opaque context.
Yes, this is very important and needs to be stressed.
And "na'e bo" does have its uses. For example: "ro na'e bo ko'a .e ko'e"
= "ro lo drata be ko'a .e ko'e" = "all but ko'a and ko'e". In this case,
"all but ko'a and all but ko'e" would be less useful.
Yes, especially since the other reading is rendered adequately by {ro
na'e bo ko'a lu'u .e ro na'e bo ko'e}.
So... are we sure it should?
Both forms of the gadri seem useful to me. I have been happily using
{lo} without this maximality presupposition, and I think at least some
of the irci have been too.
I think the maximality presupposition can't be properly examined without
a clear idea of how the universe of discourse works. I suspect that the
uses you have in mind as non-maximal with a certain understanding of UD
can be reinterpreted as maximal with a different understanding of UD.
I think most of the time maximality is indeed presupposed (though
perhaps unconsciously), except for the cases where {lo} is used for the
sole reason that we don't have plural quantifiers, and {lo} is the only
practical way to get them right now - using inner quantifiers. I suspect
that this would cease to be common (or at least become much less common
than it currently is) if all quantifiers were plural instead of singular.
I consider {lo} "definite" compared to the "indefinite" {PA broda}
construction. But we currently have no compact way to make such claims
as {PA broda} about plurals without using {lo}. Thus {lo} does two
different things depending on the situation: 1) refer, and 2) make
existential claims. The latter is not really what it's for, but it's
what it is often used as - an auxiliary for missing plural quantifiers.
I.e. we cannot easily say "three students are surrounding the building"
without bringing in a dummy {lo} that only serves to give us a plural
via inner quantifiers (even though there is no referent we wish to refer
to).
I feel this blurries up {lo}, but would only be fixed by leaving
singular quantifiers behind (or by at least making plurals easily
accessible), so there is not much (else) that can be done about it.
TLDR: I vote for maximality. :)
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
--
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.