From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 14 12:46:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 20:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 12523 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 20:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 20:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.195) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 20:46:36 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:43:14 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:43:14 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:43:14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2002 20:43:14.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD0BA540:01C1CB98] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > >< > > ro broda su'o brode cu brodi > > = no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi > > >I forget what my system is supposed by you to be. The one you have been advocating: + for the {Q broda} forms and - for the {Q da poi broda} forms. >But in any case, I don't >quite follow the identity you propose: You're right, I meant to start with {ro broda ro brode cu brodi}. Sorry about that. In any >>case, {broda} is universal, negative, and importing and {brode} appears to >>be >particular negative and free. But again I'm not sure that is right, as it >seems to change what the original sentence says. Let me write it again, corrected: ro broda ro brode cu brodi = no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi In my system the import is - for broda and - for brode. In yours, it is + for both. My point was that the form is not enough even in your system to tell what the import is: {brode} gets {poi}-quantification but + import, due to the negation hiding in {no} in front of it. The universal/particular, positive/negative characteristics can be changed while we retain the meaning of the sentence. The import cannot be changed. That's why I asked what you meant by "actual quantifier". There is no fixed quantifier for a given meaning, but there is a fixed import. You now seem to favour a system with + import for everything though. At least that means we agree that {Q broda} is equivalent to {Q da poi broda}. >I still need to read a bit more of this book, but it seems that he is using >what I would call a non-standard definition of restricted quantification, >using it only as a symtactic category, a different way of writing the usual >system, without a different semantics attached. Well, at least I can take comfort in the fact that I am not alone in my non-standardness. (I guess I was lucky that doing a search in the web, the first definition I got for "restricted quantification" was the one I was using.) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com