Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:26:59 EST

In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:27:25 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> . Is the goal just to provide the basis for a
> wiki record that can guide the usage of those who care to be guided?
> Or are we invited to express our preferences?
> 
> I prefer Jorge's version, because (a) it matches the dialect I've
> always had, in several important ways (preserving equivalence of
> lo & su'o da, treatment of 'inner quantifiers'), and (b) the contexts
> in which existential import is relevant are sufficiently rare and special
> that they justify the relatively explicit and unordinary marking that
> Jorge's system would give them.
> 
Not your your preferences, which may be terribly ill-informed or misguided, 
but your reasoning about the situation. I will, of course, have no patience 
with anyone who holds that {ro} does not imply {su'o} , while xorxes will 
greet them like long-lost brothers. But even they might at least supply 
their evidence to see whether there is some room for using this to eventually 
lay down a wiki page on the matter with some decisive statements on the 
issue.
I would have said that the cases where a free quantifier is relevant (rarely 
outside of mathematics) are too rare to be taken up with such choice forms.