Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:27:03 EST

In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:10:36 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> {me'iro} is hard to think about. I wonder whether there's no
> simple word for it because it is hard, or whether it is hard
> because there's no simple word for it... Probably the first.
> 

I suspect that there is no simple word for it because it is so rarely useful 
as opposed to {su'o...naku...} and, when it is, "not every" works fine.

<Anyway, here's what I do to understand what it says:
First introduce a {naku naku} between the two terms:

no broda naku naku me'iro da poi brode cu brodi

Now, {no broda naku} reduces to {ro broda} in both our
systems (not in Aristotle's though). And {naku me'iro da
poi brode} is any of {ro brode} or {ro da poi brode} in
my system, and I think {ro brode} in yours. That means
it reduces in both systems to:

ro broda ro brode cu brodi

This is right, "no broda is a brodi to not all brode"
is the same as "all broda are brodi to all brode."

So, in my system it has import for neither broda nor
brode, while in your system it has import for both. Did
having the form {no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi}
really help with that?>

Interesting. This shows that either system is going to have to spend some 
time on multiple quantifier cases, since this kind of recalculation just 
won't work in real time. There seems to be problems all over the place with 
second -- and probably later -- quantifiers. As patterns emerge, it should 
no doubt be possible to get some pretty tight rules on this.
Why does Aristotle's system not have {no broda naku} = {ro broda}? It seems 
that if it works in my system it should in his, since I was taking his as 
just being one foursome out of the possibilities that the notation offered, 
in which case {no broda} as opposed to {no da poi broda} (never mind for now 
that this distinction apparently has to go and you all have to find a new 
form for non-importing quantifiers) is just {ro ... naku ...} 

<I am very comfortable with making transformations in my
system, but making any transformation in yours almost always
gives me a headache, so I will keep using mine. You can use
yours and call it official (though it departs from the
Book about as much as mine does), and we'll just have to
take the risk that if we ever communicate in Lojban we
might in some marginal case misunderstand each other. (Not
that this would be anything new.)>

In light of &'s comments, I think we need to consider a further possibility, 
namely the Traditional Logic pattern. The pattern is invalid as it stands, 
but operates under the implicit assumption that all subject terms are 
non-null. It then gives the very tidy system we all know and love -- and 
would like to come as close to as possible. then, on the rare occasions when 
we want a free quantifier -- because we aren't sure whether the subject class 
is empty or not and it makes a difference -- we can use the cautious {ganai 
de S gi} prefix, ugly as it is, or something tidier that comes along