From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Sep 19 06:24:50 2002
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 9373 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 13:24:50 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer);
  Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:52:28 +0100
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk
  with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:24:48 +0100
Message-Id: <sd89de30.003@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:24:28 +0100
To: nessus <nessus@free.fr>, lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

Lionel Vidal:
#la pc cusku di'e:
#> {tu'o}, the "null operand" (nowhere further explained) is used here as a
#> vacuous PA. The grammar requires a descriptor or a number here, but the
fact
#> is that there is always exactly one thing satisfying this description, s=
o
why
#> get involved with all the problems (quantifiers especially) that using a
#> regular form involves?
#
#la xorxes cusku di'e
#>{tu'o} is the "quantifier" you use when you don't want a
#>quantifier.
#
#What is then the semantic of {tu'o broda}? If it is used when there is
#exactly one thing satisfying the description, why not be explicit
#with {lo pa broda}?

Reasons:

1. A single-member category is logically simpler than a many-member
category. It is helpful to users to mark this absence of complexity
(e.g. it says "Don't worry about quantifier scope"), but it is=20
counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an=20
extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity!

2. {lo pa broda} claims that there is only one broda. {tu'o broda}
does not make such a claim; it is just that there is no other
sensible interpretation for it, so it implies that there is only one
broda. {lo'e broda} does not claim that there is exactly one broda,
but is an instruction to conceptualize broda as a single-member
category.

--And.