From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 07 07:58:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 7 Mar 2002 15:58:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 38693 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 15:36:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 15:36:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.203) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 15:36:13 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:36:13 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:36:13 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:36:13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 15:36:13.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[D051B020:01C1C5ED] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > > >If you say so, it's too hard to do by hand. I wonder what it means. I've no idea. Like so many other things in the language, {na'e bo} was worked out assuming sumti phrases had single referents, and the quantifier cases were not taken into account. It may very well be meaningless. >A+ ro lo su'o broda cu brode >E+ no lo su'o broda cu brode >I+ su'o lo broda cu brode >O+ me'iro lo broda cu brode = da'asu'o lo broda cu brode > >A- ro lo broda cu brode >E- no lo broda cu brode >I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode >O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode> > >I agree that using {su'o} for either I- or O- is nonsense and that the best >way to deal with them is probably to leave the negations unresolved (see >below). The rest of your examples fail to indicate the difference between >+ >and -, since the status of the two formulations, {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o >broda} are, in that respect, exactly the same. If {ro} can be {no}, then {ro lo ro broda} is not the same as {ro lo su'o broda}. {[su'o] lo ro broda} is indeed the same as {[su'o] lo su'o broda} in any case. >So, I do worry about whether >{me'iro} and {da'a su'o} are quite right, since both seem to allow {no}. They do allow it. Does O+ entail I+ in your understanding? It doesn't in mine. In other words, does "some don't" entail "some do"? "Contradictories": >noda = naku su'oda >su'oda = naku noda >me'iroda = naku roda> > >Not perfectly clear what is going on here, combining + quantifier >expressions >with variables (intended for - quantification), and the negations seem >indifferent to import. They would still be valid if {da} is changed to {broda}: ro broda = naku me'iro broda no broda = naku su'o broda su'o broda = naku no broda me'iro broda = naku ro broda ><"Complementaries": >roda = da'anoda >noda = da'aroda >su'oda = da'ame'iroda >me'iroda = da'asu'oda> > >Same problem. I'm not sure what to call these in traditional terms, so >"complementaries" is as good as any -- the {da'a} notion is not classical. {da'a} can also be changed to a postposed {naku} to make it more classical: ro broda = no broda naku no broda = ro broda naku su'o broda = me'iro broda naku me'iro broda = su'o broda naku ><"Duals": >roda = naku su'oda naku >noda = naku me'iroda naku >su'oda = naku roda naku >me'iroda = naku noda naku> > >These are duals all right, but they have only a tenuous connection with the >situation in hand, since they lack import notation, which makes all the >difference. so, whether the identitis hold or not cannot be determined -- >in >the obvious readings, with the import the same on both sides, none of them >do. I did put a warning saying that these hold only if {ro} can be {no}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com