From pycyn@aol.com Thu May 31 18:20:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 1 Jun 2001 01:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 91603 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 01:20:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jun 2001 01:20:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2001 01:20:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.fd.71e5066 (3757) for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 21:20:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:20:36 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] quantifiers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fd.71e5066.284847e4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_fd.71e5066.284847e4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:39:36 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I don't think that that will work, since "ro lo" is really equivalent > to "ro da poi ke'a" and not "ro da poi". For example, "everything I > want to eat" would have to be "ro da poi mi djica le nu citka ke'a", > {ke'a} only turns up if needed, i.e. if the sumti to which {poi} attaches is not in the first place, so that is not what is special here. It may be that it cannot be put in {lo} form, in which case, this partiuclar subject will not use that {rolo} version. That is, of course, one of the reasons for having several ways of saying the same thing, but, in this case, the first does always work (I think -- until someone fadges up a contrary case). I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work. {roci broda} comes in stages from {ro lo ci lo broda} as far as I can remember (and this explains the order); I think that (ro lo su'o lo broda} collapses to {lo broda} <(The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399])> Why, so it does! I can't help feeling that this statement is contradicted elsewhere in the relevant sense. That is, as noted, {roda Q} always does entail {su'o da Q}, but an unchanged Q may mean that {su'o da Q} is nothing like "Some S is P" -- if Q is a conditional, for example, it does not magically change to a conjunction. If this really is uniformly covered, I take the Emma Litella line. --part1_fd.71e5066.284847e4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/31/2001 2:39:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
araizen@newmail.net writes:


I don't think that that will work, since "ro lo" is really equivalent
to "ro da poi ke'a" and not "ro da poi". For example, "everything I
want to eat" would have to be "ro da poi mi djica le nu citka ke'a",
and can't be converted to a "ro lo" form.

{ke'a} only turns up if needed, i.e. if the sumti to which {poi} attaches is
not in the first place, so that is not what is special here.  It may be that
it cannot be put in {lo} form, in which case, this partiuclar subject will
not use that {rolo} version.  That is, of course, one of the reasons for
having several ways of saying the same thing, but, in this case, the first
does always work (I think -- until someone fadges up a contrary case).

<For a universal quantifier with existential import, I think we can
use "rosu'o"/"su'oro", parallel to "roci", etc. for "all three". (Is
there any convention for which number goes first in these compound
quantifiers?)>

I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work.  {roci broda} comes in stages
from {ro lo ci lo broda} as far as I can remember (and this explains the
order); I think that (ro lo su'o lo broda} collapses to {lo broda}

<(The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have
existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399])>
Why, so it does!  I can't help feeling that this statement is contradicted
elsewhere in the relevant sense.  That is, as noted, {roda Q} always does
entail {su'o da Q}, but an unchanged Q may mean that {su'o da Q} is nothing
like "Some S is P" -- if Q is a conditional, for example, it does not
magically change to a conjunction.  If this really is uniformly covered, I
take the Emma Litella line.
--part1_fd.71e5066.284847e4_boundary--