From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Nov 08 13:02:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 21:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 28361 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 21:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 21:02:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 21:02:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18AGGY-00080W-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:02:10 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AGFy-0007vV-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:01:34 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:01:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AGFt-0007vJ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:01:29 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8L1Ph36901 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:01:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:01:25 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: partial recantation in favour of solomonics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021108154944.I36803-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2548 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote: > First of all, please forgive this partial recantation. I was > overenthusiastically trying to bring us to agreement/decision. > But the interventions by John and Jordan have given me pause, > and I now realize I should have heeded my own dictum that Xorxes > is Usually Right. > > Here's my line of thinking: > > How do we say "99% of Lojbanists are male"? I don't know, but > it ought to be doable along the same lines of so'e, "most", > which also expresses a fraction of a total extension. {so'e} makes > sense only with {so'e broda} and {so'e da poi broda} -- these > can't be paraphrased with unrestricted da. > > What are the truth conditions of "99% of Lojbanists are male"? > At the least they seem to require that there are at least > 100 Lojbanists (or at least 2 Lojbanists, if the claim was > that 50% of Lojbanists were male). So n% would seem to be > importing. But I think we also would like to be able to say > truthfully that "50% of unicorns are male". So it seems desirable > that we should be able to mark n% quantifiers as either > importing or nonimporting. Jorge already suggested a way to do > that: by adding ma'u/ni'u with no default when it is omitted, > and letting it be glorked from context when not used. This would > naturally extend to "100% of", which is equivalent to {ro}. I > therefore conclude that for all fractional quantifiers, including > {ro} and {so'e}, we want both importing and nonimporting versions, > and xorxes's suggestion is the best way to effect it. > > Is this something everyone could live with? I don't like overloading the meanings of ma'u and ni'u. I don't like leaving it to context when it's not expressed. And you should probably read and meditate on what I closed message 17044 with, which shows why "50% of unicorns are male" is always a valid statement. -- "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." -- Edward Abbey