Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:43:27 -0500

At 01:49 PM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
>Thank you muchly for this! You've cleared up a lot of fuzziness in my
>understanding. Do you mind if I just ask you to check my understanding of
>one passage, though? -
>
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > At 02:00 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
>[...]
> > >And also - I'm assuming that plain [sumbasti] is equivalent to su'o pa
> > >[sumbasti]. If not, what difference does putting a quantifier before the
> > >[sumbasti] make?
> >
> > For DA that is correct. Since lerfu/KOhA are unbound, and presumed
> > already-defined, I think they have implicit quantifier "ro" I guess that
> > you COULD use a lerfu as a bound variable by *explicitly* quantifying it in
> > a prenex.
>
>So are you saying that {.ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {ro da poi broda
>zo'u}, and {su'o .ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {da poi broda zo'u}, and
>that in both cases previous assignment of .ibu is overridden, at least for
>the scope of the prenex (following the usual DA rules)?

1. This is neither "rules" (in that I doubt that anything discusses this 
topic) nor probably "usage" (in that anyone has tried it before, not that 
I've been paying attention). It is only my best judgement on how >I< would 
understand things if so used.

2. I think that it would be bad usage to reuse an explicitly assigned 
(with goi) .ibu merely by mentioning it in a prenex without deassigning it.

3. Getting past those two points, I think that an explicitly quantified 
unassigned .ibu ("su'o .ibu [poi broda zo'u]") might be understood as a 
da-like bound variable. Without the explicit quantification (as in your 
"ibu poi broda zo'u"), I think .ibu should be understood to have a definite 
value (but if it isn't currently assigned, who knows what that value is).
Using .ibu as an alternative DA-series allows one to represent 
mathematical symbols in an equation more precisely, which suits the intent 
of MEX, but since its normal use is NOT as a quantified variable but as a 
pro-sumti, it should be explicitly quantified to make this clear.

4. I would NOT favor the use of .ibu as a quantified variable EXCEPT in a 
MEX context, where it is justified by supporting the international symbolic 
language of mathematics.

>And just for
>completeness - does it then, after the scope of the prenex has finished,
>revert back to its pre-prenex assignment, or become unset?

Any quantified variable becomes unset after its scope has ended in formal 
usage. As people have noted, simple connection with ".i" rather than I+JE 
is ambiguous as to whether scope continues, and so could informally 
continue the scope.

>If I *have* understood you right here, firstly - good, that makes sense
>and should be usable, and secondly - any objections if I start a Wiki page
>on all this? I feel it's the kind of thing which should be explicitly
>documented somewhere.

Anyone can start a wiki page. You needn't be expert, and some people read 
the wiki that do not read the list, so you may get other comments.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org