Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:06:11 +0000

pc:
#<Further, if Jorge and pc want to propose comprehensive
#systems for importing and nonimporting quantifiers, they
#should be done solely on the basis of "da poi ke'a", since
#only such a system will generalize to all cases. In this
#respect, Jorge's and pc's proposals are equally defective.>
#
#How disappointing! But it does provide a nice agreeable ending for the 
#discussion. Except that we now have no forms for the people who seem #to want - forms. Not a great loss, I think, but they (and I rather think & and 
#surely xorxes are in the group) will want to protest. Well, let them comeup 
#with a good answer, then.

"ro da ga broda gi na brode" is effectively nonimporting, since it
doesn't entail "da brode". 

Perhaps "ro lu'a lo'i broda" is not importing either -- I don't think that's
been discussed at all.

I have to concede that, from my *severely* limited knowledge of
restricted quantification, r.q. is importing, so if "da poi" is, as the
syntax obviously suggests, r.q., then "ro da poi ke'a broda" entails 
"su'o da broda". And if "lo broda" is an abbreviation of "da poi ke'a 
broda" then "ro broda" must entail "su'o da broda".

So, although my dialect is the same as Jorge's, I think I shall have
to switch sides to pc, and declare myself to have been Wrong.

I am fairly confident that this entire thread will have zero effect on
usage, but the participants seem to have derived pleasure from it,
which is enough.

--And.