From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 12 14:27:14 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 22:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 2325 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 22:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 22:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 22:27:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.126.d2cb368 (3996) for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:26:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <126.d2cb368.29bfdab3@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:26:59 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_126.d2cb368.29bfdab3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_126.d2cb368.29bfdab3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:27:25 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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. --part1_126.d2cb368.29bfdab3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/12/2002 2:27:25 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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.
 --part1_126.d2cb368.29bfdab3_boundary--