Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:35:32 EST

In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:25:35 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode
> O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode
> 
> These last four forms should all work in pc's system as well.
> 

Well, no, since I don't diostinguish between {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o 
broda} (which is why I can use {lo broda} for the importing quantifiers 
throughout.

<Notice that in the set notation, the group that does
not require the import condition is A-,E-,I+,O+.
That condition is implicit already in the first part.
Some people say that the same happens in English:

A- All S are P
E- No S is P
I+ Some S are P
O+ Not all S are P>

The relative simplicity here is an artefact of the logical system used, which 
has these reading privileged. Did we use restricted quantification as basic, 
the + forms would be simple and - complex. Did we use Aristotle's own 
system, the affirmative + and the negative - would be simple. I suspect 
there are ways to do the same for any other combination you like. But the 
differences come down to notation, not any significant differences in logic. 
In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of 
fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent 
coourse through that. But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of 
meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce.