From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 08 14:48:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 21:47:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 97703 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 21:47:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 21:47:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 21:47:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.cb.15ca823b (4543) for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:47:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o again (was: the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cb.15ca823b.28cbebf0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_cb.15ca823b.28cbebf0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > But now you have raised additional questions. The way you use tu'o: > > a. It certainly includes existence, no? > > b. Isn't it "making a true but additional and unnecessary claim that the > cardinality is 1."? > > I don't know why the dynamics of tu'o and pa are so different. They are > the same selma'o. > As near as I can follow all this, the point about {tu'o} is that, as an overt quantifier. it excludes any covert quantifiers or gadri and thus, in particular excludes the existential quantifier, which generates problems of various sorts (as it does, but not as many as the universal -- or some others). It also excludes the need to say {pa}, which is obvious in these cases. So it does not function differently, it just expresses it differently, with a resulting simplification at some depth of analysis. As for joining {pa} in PA, look at how differently {pa} behaves from {su'o} (string v. non-string, used with decinmals v. not, etc.); all these things are grammatical but some are nonsenisical (so far as we know now, any how). --part1_cb.15ca823b.28cbebf0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:



But now you have raised additional questions. The way you use tu'o:

a. It certainly includes existence, no?

b. Isn't it "making a true but additional and unnecessary claim that the
cardinality is 1."?

I don't know why the dynamics of tu'o and pa are so different. They are
the same selma'o.




As near as I can follow all this, the point about {tu'o} is that, as an overt
quantifier. it excludes any covert quantifiers or gadri and thus, in
particular excludes the existential quantifier, which generates problems of
various sorts (as it does, but not as many as the universal -- or some
others).  It also excludes the need to say {pa}, which is obvious in these
cases.  So it does not function differently, it just expresses it
differently, with a resulting simplification at some depth of analysis.
As for joining {pa} in PA, look at how differently {pa} behaves from {su'o}
(string v. non-string, used with decinmals v. not, etc.); all these things
are grammatical but some are nonsenisical (so far as we know now, any how). --part1_cb.15ca823b.28cbebf0_boundary--