Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e =? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?)

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:17:18 -0000

[This thread has turned into the sort of thing that is supposed
to go to Jboske, but I'm replying to Lojban list because Jordan
doesn't want to be on Jboske. If anyone would like to suggest
the proper etiquette in this situation, I will gladly follow
it.]

Jordan:
> > However, the so-called "inner quantifier" functions as an indicator
> > of cardinality. I don't see why a set of cardinality ro has to be
> > a set of cardinality su'o. This is a subject of ongoing debate on
> > Jboske 
> 
> If ro is importing (and apparently it is), it does 

This is debatable. Firstly, the fact that quantifier ro is importing
does not not entail that cardinality ro entails su'o. Secondly,
it is not necessarily ro that it importing: I hold to the view that
it is da that is importing, so that just as {ro da poi broda} entails
{da broda}, so does {no da poi broda}.

> > As for whether zo'e claims existence, "lo'e pavyseljirna" is held
> > to be a possible value for da, since the universe of things
> > can include imaginaries. The view has always been that zo'e
> > entails da, because any sumti bar {no da} and {zi'o} entail da 
> > As you say:
> > > The only restrictions the book places on what zo'e can represent is
> > > that zo'e can't stand for "noda" and it can't stand for "zi'o" 
> 
> Well: even though ro is importing, there's still sumti which don't
> entail da which aren't {no da} or {zi'o}:
> no gerku == no da poi gerku
> no da poi gerku != no da, and doesn't import 

As I say above, I think it does import. It's not a settled question.

> no na'ebo le broda doesn't import

So in your view {no na'e bo le broda cu broda} does not mean the
same thing as {ro na'e bo le broda ku na ku broda}? 

I'd say that they mean the same, and that if they both are equivalent
to a form involving {da po'u na'e bo le broda} then they both 
entail {da me/du na'e bo le broda}. 

> There's probably others.. 
> 
> FWIW, it makes sense to me that lo'e (or le'e) pavyseljirna is a
> possible value for da, so I retract the example with that (and
> obviously the one with lo'i is apparently wrong because ro imports) 

There's currently room for legitimate difference of opinion on these
matters. They need to be settled, but they're not settled yet.

--And.