From nessus@free.fr Thu Sep 19 07:39:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 14:39:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 32404 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 14:39:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 14:39:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 14:39:03 -0000 Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760D7C008C89AE for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:39:02 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.42.63) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D80120400477AB7 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:39:02 +0200 Message-ID: <003001c25fec$07856b20$3f2af8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: "lojban" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:50:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf And: > #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 > counterintuitive to have to add extra coomplexity, in the form of an > extra word {pa} , in order to signal an absence of complexity! err, but then I can use {pa broda} which the book says is syntactically the same as {lo pa broda}, and get only one marker. Besides, one should always worry about quantifiers, as they are always there, implicit or not. Why not indicate your reader clearly that exactly one thing satisfy the description if it is indeed the case? This will relieve the reader to draw that eventually needed conclusion from the use of {tu'a}. > 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. In that case, I don't see any differences as I do need this implication result to fully understand the semantic of {tu'o 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. pc: >Why not just use {le} or even {lo} since these all amount to the same > thing in this case -- or {pa}, for that matter. I agree that in this case, all these amount to the same thing, but: - {lo} alone seems less clear to me as I have still to analyse {broda} to realize that it is equivallent to {lo pa} (or {pa}). With the use of {pa} I am warned before hand, and the overall intended meaning could be more apparent. - {le} seems the lesser clear in that case as it potentially includes a disagreement on the true referent between the speaker and the listener, when for once, only one interpretation, at least in the speaker mind, could fit. mu'omi'e lioNEL