From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 13:14:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 20:14:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 59965 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 19:59:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:39 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.43]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010827195933.QCCS710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:59:33 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:58:40 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <06cd01c12f10$100aa5c0$87b4003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > la and. cusku di'e > > > What I like about this is firstly that it would settle what lo'e and > > le'e mean: > > > > lo'e gerku (be zo'e) > > = lo(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e > > = lo(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] > > > > le'e gerku (be zo'e) > > = le(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e > > = le(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] > > What is the difference between "le ka gerku" and "lo ka gerku"? Is > there more than one "ka gerku", given a certain value for all those > "zo'e"s? To take the second question first, this is an important one. Given a certain value for the zo'es, the answer is a straightforward No, but it is not established that the sentence meaning guarantees that there is a certain value for all those zo'es. When you quantify over abstractions, do zo'e have scope inside or outside the abstraction (that is, is there reference/binding fixed inside or outside the abstraction)? My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction, and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. However, if there is no specific rule for the binding/reference-fixing of zo'e (and if its reference can be fixed arbitrarily within the abstraction, i.e so that it can't be exported to prenex of main bridi), then {na ku ro ka broda cu pa mei}, because there'd be as many {ka broda} as there are construals of the zo'e within it. IMO that would be a Bad Thing, because all abstractions would become intolerably vague, except to glorkjunkies. As for the first question, if (as I would like to maintain), there is exactly one {ka gerku}, then the difference between {le ka gerku} and {lo ka gerku} is purely one of veridicality. I think that difference is a pretty trivial one (because the nonveridicality seems pretty pointless), but at any rate, it is, I am claiming, the difference between {le'e} and {lo'e}. --And.