From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 20 18:19:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 01:19:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26364 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 01:19:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 01:19:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 01:19:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.a5.2df43bc8 (18707) for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:19:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a5.2df43bc8.2abd231f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_a5.2df43bc8.2abd231f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 5:05:09 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk 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? --part1_a5.2df43bc8.2abd231f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2002 5:05:09 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk 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?

 --part1_a5.2df43bc8.2abd231f_boundary--