From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 06 03:34:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 6 Mar 2002 11:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 74546 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 00:48:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 00:48:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.51) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 00:48:46 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:48:46 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:48:46 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] go'i: repeated referents or just sumti? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:48:46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2002 00:48:46.0678 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC441F60:01C1C4A8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la tanatos cusku di'e > >When we say "some people do this, some do that, > >and others do so and so", "some" and "others" mean "some people" > >and "other people", so we are in a sense requantifying from the > >same set ("people"), but obviously not just from the first "some > >people". > >Which isn't how the paragraph on requantification works, unfortunately. I know. But the paragraph on requantification gives an unworkable rule. >If you started with "three people" then you're always dealing with those >three; it would be "three people do this, two of them do that, some of >them do so and so", or {ci da poi prenu zo'u da co'e .ije re da co'e >.ije su'o da co'e}. What if you start with {ci da poi prenu na klama}. Which three are you dealing with then, when "it is not the case that exactly three people go"? >If you didn't want everything restricted to the >first three people you just have to put the superset in the prenex, {ro >da poi prenu zo'u ci da co'e .ije re da co'e .ije su'o da co'e}. I think the Book wants succesive requantifications to be succesive restrictions, but the whole thing is wrong from the start. >If requantification does "back up" past the initial quantification then >we're stuck if we want to quantify from that number. "That number" is an illusion. It is only well defined in special cases. In the general case, a quantifier does not by itself determine a set to which further quantifications can be restricted. >"There are three >things such that two of them do so and so and two of them do such and >such", for example. That seems like a reasonable use of >requantification as described in The Book, and I'm not sure how achieve >the same result otherwise. The difficult thing there is "them". Lojban does have trouble with that (referring back as one thing to several things that have been referred to separately), but the Book requantification rule is not a general solution for that, and in any case it breaks down as soon as you introduce negation or other quantified variables. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com