Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:19:27 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/2002 5:05:09 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> I don't see a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}. What
> am I missing?
> >>
The {ro}-{su'o} distinction goes back to a time when someone thought that 
{ro}, "every," permitted the case of 0 of the whatsis and {su'o} did not. 
The first part of this turned out to be false in the official line (as in 
Logic), so there is not distinction and we cannot meaningfully say {lo broda} 
if there are no broda, nor {lo no broda} neither.

<<
First off, let me note that {lo'e} serves as an adequate alternative
to {tu'o}. So I will recapitulate the reasons for preferring {lo'e}
or {tu'o} to {lo pa}.
The Lojban {lo'e} might, but in a very twisted way -- the typical member of a 
class of one is that one member, I suppose (but I bet I could make a case for 
otherwise without doing much damage). On the other hand, xorxes' {lo'e} 
(which is now yours as well, you say) will not work, because what is wanted 
here is a broda, and {lo'e broda} is not one -- or anything else: {lo'e 
broda} is an improper symbol, making sense only in {... lo'e broda ...} and 
there dissolving without remainder into an expression in which no part 
matches this expression. And, in particular it does not, as {tu'o broda} 
does, allow binding (the inference to {da} -- or from {roda}).

<<
1. {lo pa} is sensitive to negation: whereas {tu'o broda na brode}
is unproblematic, it corresponds to {lo pa broda na ku brode}, not
to {lo pa broda na brode}. In my view, something that is sensitive
to scope adds complexity to the mental processing of the sentence.
Actually, CLL never mentions this question in dealing with quantifiers and 
negation. to be sure, sentences that have the size of the set wrong are 
called false, but there is also no evidence I could find that that would make 
the {na} denial true. I think it wore likely that internal quantifiers are 
... (I forget the technical term, "filter?" probably not), that is, they are 
preconditions that must be met for the sentences involving them to be true (I 
think any sentencewhere this condition is not meant, even the denial of one 
false for this reason, is false). Lojban has a negation for that situation, 
{na'i}. So, {lo pa} is likely impervious to {naku} movement, in a way that 
{pa lo}, for example, is not (compare the case of {lo no} above, though this 
could just be a problem of internal contradiction: "one or more out of 
none"). 

<<
2. {lo pa} makes a claim. I do not wish it to have to be the case
that whenever I talk about a du'u I also claim that there is only
one du'u. If I say {lo pa broda cu brode} I am claiming that
(i) something is broda and brode, and (ii) the cardinality of
lo'i broda is 1. But I want to be able to claim only (i).
What is the fate of {tu'o broda} if there are moe than one broda? Will every 
sentence containing the expression be false or only those outside the scope 
of a {naku}? If the former, then it is exactly on a par with {lo pa}. If 
the latter, then IT is the one making an additional claim.

<<
3. As I have already shown, the point of marking a singleton
category as a singleton category is to help the speaker and
hearer by signalling the greater logical simplicity. It runs
contrary to general principles of form--function iconicity to
signal simplicity of meaning by adding an extra meaningful word
(pa).
But using a meaningless one (and so strictly dispensible) is OK?