From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Nov 07 06:35:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 14:35:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 94830 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 14:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 14:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 14:35:52 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:02:21 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:35:47 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:35:20 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro 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: #a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: #> pc, #> the main instigator and advocate of the Yes answer to Q1, bases #> his reasons on the way things work in logic, but we do not have #> to agree that {da poi} is restricted quantification; we can decree #> that it is not. Anybody who really wants restricted quantification #> and Option B can create appropriate experimental cmavo for it. #Since so many peple have been kind enough to tell me what I think and have= =20 #universally gotten it wrong, allow me to say what I really do think.=20=20 #1. There are four fundamental quantifiers in Lojban: {ro, su'o, no,=20 #me'i[ro]} (I intend to make sure that the default origin for {me'i} is {ro= },=20 #if it is not already). [...] #Sentences of the form {Q da poi broda cu brode} occupy an intermediate=20 #position, since {poi} can be read either as a restrictor on the range of t= he=20 #quantifier (the most natural, I think, but I don't insist on it) or as a p= art=20 #of the predicate to a universal subject -- that is as {ganai gi} or {ge gi= }=20 #depending on the quantifier. This seems to me the only question left to=20 #settle.=20 If we settle on the latter option -- the one without restriction on quantif= ier range & with implicit rewriting to ganai-gi.ge-gi -- then most of the dispu= te goes away, and we end up with the position that is preferred by everybody=20 who has indicated their preferences -- me, xorxes, Adam, Jordan, & probably others. It seems to me that we might all be able to agree on this for once and for all: 1. Contrary to what Woldy says,=20 ro broda cu brode=20 =3D ro da poi broda cu brode =3D ro da ga na broda gi brode This would require a correction to 16.8 or wherever it is that Woldy says these mean different things. 2. The universe is not empty. If we can agree on these two things -- & nobody has spoken out against either of them -- then won't that allow this debate to evaporate into irrelevance and inconsequentiality? = =20 --And.