From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jul 07 14:39:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 7 Jul 2002 21:39:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 37542 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2002 21:39:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jul 2002 21:39:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.64) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2002 21:39:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:39:52 -0700 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:39:52 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) In-Reply-To F82t69A9gy3Xiz93Fd100006cb6@hot Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:39:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2002 21:39:52.0728 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3ED9980:01C225FE] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >{piro} is no more transparent to negation boundaries or quantifier order >than >{pisu'o} is -- {piro loi broda na brode} = {pisu'o loi broda cu naku brode} I don't think that's true. The first does entail the second, but {pisu'o loi broda naku brode} could be true and {piro loi broda na brode} false. For example: piro lei bolci na se culno le baktu FALSE pisu'o lei bolci naku se culno le baktu TRUE (BTW, you can't have {naku} after {cu}, it is not part of the selbri.) {piro loi broda} is trasnsparent to negation boundaries because it is a singular term. >(I know that you probably allow {piro} on empty masses, but skipping that >oddity for now -- it just means we have to use the marked forms here). >And the choice of the default quantifier, it it has any reason other than >"something has to be default" is likely tied up with the nature of masses >and thus affects every word that deals with masses. But it has no other reason than "something has to be default" as far as I can see. >On that ground, I think >that selected masses are different from universal ones -- but Lojban says >they are not, so all get the same treatment. Talking about universal masses as a whole only produces platitudes, that's why having {piro} for them would be a waste. {pisu'o loi} surely must be more frequent than {piro loi}. But in the case of {lei}, we normally want to talk about the whole mass we have in mind. It is exactly the same thing that happens with {le} and {lo}. >{ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i} stands for some mass {lei ... >[whatever predicate fits exactly these three things]} in a fundamental way >and thus -- by the admitted rule about implict quantification -- stands for >some unspecified submass from that set of things (my preferred reading of >{mei} in any case) . To say it is the whole mass is either to say that the >default quantifer on {loi} is {piro}, which you don't want, or to say that >{ko'a joi ko'e joi ko'i} is not equivalent to {loi du be ko'a be'o ja du be >ko'e be'o ja du be ko'i} (to pick the most boring -- and safest -- unique >property of this cluster). Right. It is equivalent instead to {piro loi du be ko'a be'o ja du be ko'e be'o ja du be ko'i}. Why is that a problem? >I admit that {le cimei} may be different because I >can't see any disaster happening if it is -- yet. And what disaster happens if {joi} is equivalent to {piro loi}? ><<(I have to admit I still don't get how the problem of >intensionality appears here.)>> > >It doesn't yet for me -- I'm doing this to avoid intensionality, remember. >But if the two masses mention above -- named by {joi}s between its member >names and the other named as the mass of those which have the property >uniigue to the things named are different, then the difference between them >is intensional -- since the set underlying them are identical (or "they >have >exactly the same members"). Is the difference between {piro loi broda} and {pisu'o loi broda} intensional? Because that's the difference between the {joi} form and the {pisu'o loi} form. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com