From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 09 18:56:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 01:56:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 91738 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 01:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 01:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 01:56:11 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.126]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010909204107.UCMC29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:41:07 +0100 Reply-To: To: "Invent Yourself" , Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o again (was: the set of answers Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:40:21 +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: > > > > "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. > > My point was only that you don't seem to be using tu'o for null, but for > "ONE!". Null means no number, but "one" means "one", which is a number and > not null at all. It is supposed to act as a null quantifier not as a null cardinality. > But now you have raised additional questions. The way you use tu'o: > > a. It certainly includes existence, no? Yes, but it's not an existential quantifier. So, for example, {ro da tu'o} = {tu'o ... ku ro da} and {na ku tu'o} = {tu'o ... ku na}. {le pa} is similar in this respect. > b. Isn't it "making a true but additional and unnecessary claim that the > cardinality is 1."? I don't see it as making a claim. I see it saying "I'm not using quantification to point to the referent", which will yield gibberish unless quantification happens to be unnecessary. You tell me, what is the outer quantifier of {li vo}? I'd say it is {tu'o}. > I don't know why the dynamics of tu'o and pa are so different. They are > the same selma'o. The selmaho are not all semantically homogeneous. Zi'o is in KOhA, for example. --And.