From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Mar 05 20:58:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 04:58:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 68976 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 00:27:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 00:27:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.15) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 00:27:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:27:31 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:27:31 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:27:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2002 00:27:31.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[B4150950:01C1C4A5] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Lojban is now on the brink of being able to use the complete set of these >quantifiers: the + group is {Q (lo) broda cu brode}, the - group is {Q da >poi >broda cu brode}. There is another way to do it: A+ ro lo su'o broda cu brode E+ no lo su'o broda cu brode I+ su'o lo su'o broda cu brode O+ me'iro lo su'o broda cu brode = da'asu'o lo su'o broda cu brode A- ro lo [ro] broda cu brode E- no lo [ro] broda cu brode I- su'o lo [ro] broda cu brode O- me'iro lo [ro] broda cu brode I can't really believe that {su'o da poi broda} is I-, true in the absence of broda, but if that works, so should {su'o lo ro broda}. Same for O-. More credible O- and I- are: O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode On the other hand, A+ and E+ are not at all controversial as {ro lo su'o broda} and {no lo su'o broda}. >Assuming that {ro} and {su'o} behave properly for A+, A- >and I+ and that {no} works for E+ and E- and that O+ is just {su'o S cu >naku >P}, we need only a new form for O-. {na'e ro} fills the bill, for even if >S >is empty, the value will be different from {ro}. But {na'e ro} is not a grammatical quantifier. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx