From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 24 09:47:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 24 Sep 2002 16:47:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 9073 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 16:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Sep 2002 16:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 16:47:27 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:15:06 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:47:44 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:47:27 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban 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 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: [...] #<< #I said that changing inner {ro} to {me'iro} was nonsense, not #that the passage of a negation boundary did not affect the inner #quantifier. If the inner quantifier is {ro}, then nothing is changed, #because {ro} as inner quantifier in fact adds nothing, neither #claim nor presupposition: {lo'i broda} always has ro members #by definition. #>> #Let's see, negation boundaries do affect inner quantifiers except in the c= ase=20 #of the most common one. That does seem to violate the notion that they ar= e=20 #affected -- a rule is a rule after all and the effects of negation boundar= ies=20 #on the universal quantifier is one of the best established of such rules. = =20 So called "inner quantifiers" should be called "inner cardinality indicator= s" -- just as PA does not always function as a quantifier (e.g. in {li pa}), s= o=20 in {lo PA broda} it functions as an indicator of cardinality, not as a quantifier. Negation boundaries affect all inner cardinality indicators, but since ro does not ascribe any cardinality to the set, it is vacuously affected. #As for {ro} adding nothing, it does at least exclude {no} (I know you disa= gree,=20 #but this is my turn) and, further, as the default, can be stuck in anywher= e=20 #nothing is explicit (which is why I take it that nebgation does not affect= =20 #it). What about {le broda}, where the default is {su'o} : does {naku le=20 #broda} go over to {ro le no broda naku}? If not, why not? Not. Because *everything* within a le- phrase IS presupposed -- that is the very nature of le-.=20 &: #<< #> Even #> mathematicians and linguists pretty much get this right. # #The the confusion may be about what "this" is. #>> #That "all" has existential import. I guess I have to take back "linguist= s"=20 #-- but, gee, my people (Partee, Bill Bright, various Lakoffs) and McCawley= =20 #had it right. Does McCawley deal with it in _Everything linguists always wanted to know about logic_? I think that perhaps part of the issue concerns whether restricted=20 quantification exists in Lojban -- whether {da poi broda cu brode} means something different from {da ge broda gi brode}. I suspect you would say that the former but not the latter entails {da broda}. If I'm right about this, at least I can understand where you're coming from, and will be in a position to think properly about the issues. [...] #[Calling citation -- or the threat of such -- Argument from Authority is=20 #prejudicial, even when modified by "legitimately": loading.] As I said, I think threatened citation and Arg from Auth is legitimate, but I don't see much difference between them.=20 #<< #My brand of English has "all" and "every" as nonimporting, and #"each" as importing, but "each" quantifies over a definite class #(i.e. it means "each of the"), so the importingness is probably #an artefact of the definiteness. #>> #I'll take your word for it, even though I have found (as have more formal= =20 #empiricial researchers on the issue) that people are not very clear about= =20 #this and often display patterns incompatible with their conscious beliefs = on=20 #the topic. In particular, though, people who allow both importing and=20 #non-importing meanings usually group "every" with "each" (as it is=20 #historically as well =3D "ever each"), so you constitute a group either ne= w or=20 #too small to have been noted before. Your explanation for the position of= =20 #"each" probably accounts for your case, which is basically a "no importing= "=20 #one. Everybody groups "every" and "each" together separate from "all", because the former are distributive: "Every thing is", "Each (thing) is", "All (thi= ngs) are". If you can give me references on the importingness of "all" and "every" I will go and look them up. I am skeptical about there being dialect differen= ces, but I shouldn't prejudge. #<< #If you have the logical formula: # # P and ASSERTED: Q # #how should that be expressed grammatically so that it comes out #like # # Q PRESUPPOSED: and P #>> #I don't follow the formula, I think. Suppose that P presupposes Q. Then = the=20 #whole situation is "P funny-and Q."=20=20 At a presyntactic/prelexical level I think it is "P and I-HEREBY-ASSERT Q" #Negating this would be "not P funny-and Q,"=20 Polishly "funny-and Q not P", not "not funny-and Q P", I take it you mean. #{na'i}ing it would be either "not(P and Q)" ("and" not at all funny) or (b= etter)=20 #"not Q whether P" ("whether" =3D Lojban {u}).=20=20 The former would Griceanly imply the latter. #lioNEL: #<< #Indeed, I take the opposing views. As xorxes pointed it out, the whole #issue seems to decide wether the INNER part is claimed or presupposed. #IMO it is naturally claimed (the ro case being special, see below): #I would find it very strange, to say the least, to consider something #explicitly stated as something presupposed. #>> #Me too. But INNER is not stated, merely displayed and, thus, open to a=20 #variety of interpretations, of which "presupposed" is one. "Asserted" is= =20 #another, but I can't find any cases of it actually working that way anywhe= re=20 #and many cases of the presupposing version, even without {ro}.=20=20 Can you cite some of the many cases of the presupposing version without ro? --And.