[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development

Thanks. I'm not sure all these statements quite cohere, tho if Jorge thinks they do then they probably do.

I'd like to see some examples of l- differing from s-, tho. I can't think of any.

--And.


Mike S., On 29/08/2012 22:36:



For reference:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@hidden.email <mailto:jjllambias@hidden.email>> wrote:

    On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com <mailto:maikxlx%40gmail.com>> wrote:
     >
     > I take it that the {l-} encodes something like specificity or
     > definiteness, but what is the exact meaning and logical mechanism?

    All I know is that the variable quantified by l- acts basically like a
    constant, if that's what you call specific/definite.


(At the time, I thought that "l-" had a stronger meaning than Lojban "lo".)

Also:

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@hidden.email <mailto:jjllambias@hidden.email>> wrote:

    On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:01 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta%40gmail.com>> wrote:
     >
     > 4. Is there a reason why we can't do without {l} -- why an existential
     > quantifier won't suffice? (I expect the answer is Yes, but tell me the
     > reason.)

    "l" is prior to the "r"/"s" distinction. With "l" the referent(s) that
    satisfy the restriction are not distinguished, individuated, counted.
    They are myopically singularized (which doesn't mean they can't be
    many). This means that "l" can be moved past negation and proper
    quantifiers, which is very convenient.



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:


    What's the difference between s- and l-?


All that I can tell is this: "s-" is the existential quantifier of FOL.  As far as "l-", it may be helpful to first say what isn't:  It isn't a part of FOL.  In practice, putting it (as best I can) in natural language terms, it is a phonologically non-zero, semantically zero article.

Pretty much it's the same difference as "su'o" versus "lo" in Lojban.