From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 20 06:27:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 20 Sep 2002 13:27:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 95254 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 13:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2002 13:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 13:27:04 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (m80-mp1.cvx3-a.bre.dial.ntli.net [62.255.96.80]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A671F2726E for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:27:02 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:28:43 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <102.1b291dc8.2abb2dcf@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > << > > 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! > > >> > I'm not sure what this means. Most one-member categories (I'm not > sure what that means either, so I will read it as "set") Read it as "intensionally-defined set". > that we are > interested in are enormously more complex than the set of dogs, say. ? > But moreover, {pa} is simpler by any normal measurement than {tu'o} > (assuming that {tu'o} has any content at all). I said that {tu'o} is simpler than {lo pa}, by the obvious criterion of word count. > << > 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. > >> > If some claim is essential for some operation, it is always better to > make it than to imply it. Quite so. And conversely, to make an inessential claim is a distraction from the essential claim. > The interpretation of {lo'e} -- xorxes' > {lo'e} that is -- is contentious and, amazingly, even less clear than > xorxes original or modified claims. I haven't totally given up on making you able to understand it, but past experience makes me pessimistic. On the whole, if Jorge and I understand and agree with each other, I'm usually fairly confident that we're onto the Right Idea. --And.