Re: [lojban] Re: A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)

It's been a while since I paid much attention to attempts to patch up otherwise improve this inherently flawed system, but the simplified connective system seems actually have done some useful work in that direction. It has been even longer since I thought about xorl0, but if asked I would have said that it had both plural terms and plural quantifiers (though I would not have been surprised to learn that people were not using them consistently nor well). Still, it is nice to see it all spelled out again, except, of course, for the forced positional attribution of distribution or collectivity. Some words just aren't fixed that way ("carry" from the classic case going back to JCB) and so we still need an occasional device to mark which is to be used in a particular case -- one that attaches to particular argument slots.

On Friday, October 7, 2016 11:34 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:

I've not be able to fully grok the articles but I really like this series of "Simpler".
I really look forward to see the one on "Morphology".

Remo

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:27 PM, <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

Em sexta-feira, 7 de outubro de 2016 15:09:59 UTC+3, selpa'i escreveu:
In this article I will take a closer look at the quantifier logic
currently present in (post-xorlo) Lojban. I will identify logical
problems as well as practical disadvantages. Finally, I will offer a
solution that addresses both.

Not only is the current system both impractical and unintuitive, its
introduction also left behind one major logical flaw as Lojban made the
move from singular logic to plural logic.

Read on to find out what singular logic and plural logic are, how they
are related to xorlo, and why the current situation is not tenable.

https://solpahi.wordpress.com/ 2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifie r-logic/

One thing is that it says that under singular logic "nobody is gathering" is impossible but why not use {selcmi}. That's of course beside the point of the article. That section is clearly called "singular meets plural", which some readers might forget about, though.

Phrasing {na ku su’oi jbopre na ku remna} might make the reader think whether the scope is affected by plural quantifiers or not (since {su'oi} is in the middle but later it's asserted that plural {re} and {ci} aren't affected by scope).

Also it'd be nice to explain one mysterious particle of class LE one day since it's (for obvious reasons) absent from the proposal in this article.

And singular/plural looks like an obsession with Pythagorean number, which rule the world.
E.g. such quantifier as "various" in "People talk to each other in various languages" is roughly {so'i} and precisely based on {vrici} and non-distributive (or sometimes is distributive) but is a quantifiers that quantifies other predicates. Such quantifiers are unfortunately often forgotten.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/ group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.