From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Jan 25 06:02:21 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Jan 2003 14:02:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 14633 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2003 14:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2003 14:02:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2003 14:02:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18cQt2-0003jm-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:02:20 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18cQsn-0003iR-00; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:02:05 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18cQsf-0003e6-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:01:58 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.49]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0772E47E9F for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:01:25 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: za'e "postnex" Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:01:25 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 3908 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Martin: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote: > > > [text] .i ro ibu zo'u go'i/la'edi'u > > > or > > > [text with no .i on the end] vau to ro ibu zo'u > > > > Both are elegant but in different ways (which could be discussed on > > Jboske) they both require glorking to get from what they actually say > > to the intended meaning, whereas ordinary prenexes don't. That doesn't > > mean that Martin wouldn't be satisfied with your suggestions, but it > > does mean that it would be misleading to describe your suggestions as > > afterthought quantification, if that implies some kind of strong parallel > > with forethought quantification > > Indeed, but then the mathematical usage we were emulating is similarly > ambiguous and ill-defined. I think the {li'o vau to li'o zo'u} solution is > an accurate rendering of the original, and sounds quite natural. Though of > course you're right that a proper prenex will always be preferable, it's > something I can imagine quite often not thinking of in time > > Though perhaps it's best to keep lojban unforgiving, and let it teach us > to think ahead more.. You're right. We want Lojban both to be able to unambiguously encode our intended meaning and to be able to encode vague meanings that leave a lot to glorking. --And.