From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 08 13:43:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 20:43:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 34906 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 20:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 20:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 20:43:30 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.94]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010908204328.XRAD710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:43:28 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o again (was: the set of answers Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:42:44 +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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xod: > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > Xod: > > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > > there was agreement that {tu'o} couldn't sensically mean both > "null operand" > > > > and "non-specific/elliptical number", and John opined that it > should mean > > > > only "null operand". I agree with him. > > > > > > What does "null operand" mean? Does it mean a number-substitute for > > > situations where no number can fit? I can't think of any such example, > > > though. Even with the concept of Universe, of which there is by definition > > > only one, it is modernly considered that there may be a multitude of them. > > > > "null operand" means "mekso equivalent of zi'o". When it is argument of an > > n-ary operator it converts the operator to a (n-1)-ary operator. > > > > But since it is a PA, it can grammatically occur in a quantifier position, > > but with no obvious meaning. Then Jorge suggested using it in contexts > > where a quantifier/gadri is grammatically mandatory but logically otiose > > and odious. (E.g. for sumti derived from selbri "x1 is the proposition > > 2+2=4", "x1 is the colour blue", "x1 is Xod", and so on.) > > Are you using it where a number is odious? Or where any number besides > "one" is odious? If you use {pa} rather than {tu'o} in these contexts, you're (a) using existential quantification (with all the attendant issues of scope- sensitivity) and (b) making a true but additional and unnecessary claim that the cardinality is 1. (b) and especially (a) are objectionable things. --And.