[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
On 08.10.2016 00:37, Jorge Llambías wrote:
Have you thought about "su'e"? Presumably it should pattern with "ru'o",
not with "ro'oi", so the su'o/su'e symmetry would be broken if su'o
becomes su'oi.
What I really want is for the existential quantifier to become distinct
from the "at least n" operator. In my preferred version of cekitauj (the
cmavo swap dialects) the existential quantifier is spelled {su} and the
"at least" operator is spelled {su'o}. This split is not possible in
official Lojban, unfortunately, but it would keep the symmetry intact.
(There is also another problem it would deal with: for some reason some
people want {su'o} without a following number to be the same as {su'o
xo'e} rather than a guaranteed {su'o pa}. With a distinct {su} this
wouldn't be as much of a problem)
Would "no" become "no'oi" as well?
Yes, I believe it must and should.
{no} should be {na ku su'oi} so that a claim like {no da jmaji} has the
proper strength.
We should also have explicit definitions for me'i, za'u, da'a, so'a,
so'e, etc since they all admit more than one pluralification, but I'm
guessing they would all follow the "ru'o" pattern as well.
Yes.
{so'e jbopre cu banka'e lo .inglico} ("Most Lojbanists speak English")
cannot be expanded like a normal numerically quantified statement:
? su'oi da poi jbopre gi'e so'e mei cu banka'e lo .inglico
"Some xx that are Lojbanists and most in number speak English." [1]
Quantifiers like {so'e}, {so'a}, ..., so-called proportional
quantifiers, require there to be something they are proportional to. The
number of broda in e.g. {so'e broda cu brode} is compared to the number
of (all) broda that brode. "Out of all the Lojbanists, most of them
speak English."
So I would say that
ru'o da poi jbopre zo'u so'e de poi menre da cu banka'e lo .inglico
"All [the] Lojbanists taken together are such that most of them
speak English."
is a better (intermediate) expansion. (Getting rid of {so'e} entirely is
possible, but I'm too lazy to type it out. The proportion is >0.5)
But {me'i} and {za'u} can be considered prefixes. I had thought {me'i PA
da} would mean {su'oi da poi me'i PA mei}. A definition in terms of
{ru'o} would also be possible, but I'm not sure that it would be better.
It would mean allowing prefixes (like "<" and ">") to turn non-{ru'o}
numerical quantifiers into {ru'o}-type quantifiers, and this requires a
good justification.
~~~mi'e la solpa'i
--
[1]: I don't think arguing that mei2 could save this expansion is all
that helpful.
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
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.