Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:35:20 +0000

pc:
[email-masked] 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 
#universally gotten it wrong, allow me to say what I really do think.  
#1. There are four fundamental quantifiers in Lojban: {ro, su'o, no, 
#me'i[ro]} (I intend to make sure that the default origin for {me'i} is {ro}, 
#if it is not already).
[...]
#Sentences of the form {Q da poi broda cu brode} occupy an intermediate 
#position, since {poi} can be read either as a restrictor on the range of the 
#quantifier (the most natural, I think, but I don't insist on it) or as a part 
#of the predicate to a universal subject -- that is as {ganai gi} or {ge gi} 
#depending on the quantifier. This seems to me the only question left to 
#settle. 

If we settle on the latter option -- the one without restriction on quantifier
range & with implicit rewriting to ganai-gi.ge-gi -- then most of the dispute
goes away, and we end up with the position that is preferred by everybody 
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, 
ro broda cu brode 
= ro da poi broda cu brode
= 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?  

--And.