From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jul 26 16:01:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 26 Jul 2001 23:01:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17018 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.28) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:01:26 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 23:01:26.0756 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6118240:01C11626] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Well, no. My answer was for the particular case where the first quantifier >was {ro} and so took in all the prenu. With other initial quantifiers, it >works out that the retriction attached to the second use is that they all >are >among those selected by the first quantifier, What? Quantifiers don't select anything. {su'o da poi prenu cu prami} is a statement about the set of all persons. >i.e. roughly {su'o da poi >prenu su'o de po'u da zo'u} (I'm not sure this will exactly work until I >run >the expansion, which I am too lazy to do just now). I don't think we can have one rule for {ro} and a different rule for {su'o}, as it would cause all sorts of inconsistencies. Consider this for example: su'o da poi prenu ku'o naku zo'u da prami su'o da which is logically equivalent to: naku ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da So we can't replace one {su'o da} for {su'o de} and the other one for {da} just on the grounds that the previous quantifier was ro or su'o. The Right Thing is obviously that {su'o da} in both cases (which is really the same case) should be equivalent to {su'o de poi prenu}. This is also more or less what happens in natlangs in any case: "No student took that class. They hate the teacher." "They" obviously refers to all the students, not to "no student". In Lojban that might go something like {no da poi tadni cu cilre fo ko'a i ro da xebni le ctuca}. >That is, once {da} is >set up as a term, quantifiers work on it as they do on other terms {lo >broda} >for example. {su'o lo prenu} may refer to a different prenu every time it is used. I don't understand how you could have a double binding in this case. >I am unsure what that would mean for the {goi} case; probably gobbledygook >unless la alphas was the same entity as la betas. In {da goi la alfas} la alfas cannot have a previous referent. If it does, then it is gobbledygook. >What does {ko'a goi la >alfas ko'a goi la betas} mean: {da} should be the same. No! I need context to know what {ko'a goi la alfas} means. With no context, I will assume {la alfas} already has a referent and so it is ko'a that is being assigned. Then if {la beta} has no referent, {ko'a goi la beta} assigns the same referent to it. In {su'o da goi la alfas}, da cannot be assigned anything, as it is a variable bound by {su'o}, a variable that runs over all things, and the assignment simply means that you can now use {la alfas} to stand for this variable. >da'o ... xy}. Does da'o clear the xy assignment? Presumably >it does, as it clears all pro-sumti, doesn't it? But da'o >is not necessary to use da again, all that is necessary is >a new quantifier.> > >Yes {da'o} clears the xy assignment and the subsequent {da} is a new >quantifier, not now restricted to xy. That's what I thought. You will have to correct you demonstration then, as you leave xy dangling unassigned in the middle of it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8199 >But without the {da'o} (or other >devices for clearing assignments), even {ro da} would be restricted to xy. > >I think. This is expansion of Book 16:14 (pp 410-1) What happens if The Book is in contradiction with Logic? Which one wins? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp