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


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

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")



On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> I am still not up to speed, but this seems a relatively detached item.
> The 'l' quantifier functions in the constant- free grammar to do the work of
> a constant.  So, as an aged Montgovian, I assume that, like a constant in
> FOL, it is in reality a quantifier with widest possible scope (discourse
> wide in general).  Consequently, where it happens to occur in a discourse is
> irrelevant to it's scope; it is the ultimate context leaper.  Thus, all the
> moves across negations an the like are simply products of the fact that its
> actual scope is always displayed by placing it as far left as possible (with
> -- for now -- only other 'l's left of it).

Right. The only thing is that l- can take a formula with free
variables in its restriction, in which case it doesn't act like a
constant but more like a function, and it can't leap outside the scope
provided by the binders of its free variables.

> As for the implications from other quantifiers, la bcda fgha => sa bcda
> fgha always holds and ra bcda fgha => la bcda fgha holds if la bcda wxza
> holds for some wxz (cf. The classical All men are mortal implies Socrates is
> mortal, so long as Socrates is a man and similarly the further step to Some
> men are mortal).  I assume that 'la bcda fgha' reads as ( sorry, xorxes)
> "this (bunch of) bcd are fgh", where "this" is taken in as attenuated a
> sense as possible: "one(s) we are talking about", say.  (I will wait til
> later to worry about what this means for collective and individual
> predication and reference and what are in Lojban iterated 'lo's.)

"This bunch of bcd" suggests there are other bcd's in our universe of
discourse (the bcd not in this bunch) even if we won't be saying
anything about them  That's the wrong kind of presupposition for l-,
so I think that gloss violates some maxim of quantity or something.
But if the gloss is all we're not agreeing on, it doesn't matter much.

ma'a xrxe