[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> Getting back to fundamentals. I understand And as using {tu'o} in
> the following circumstance:
> 1 the number of items used from the set is fixed (usually one) or
> makes no difference at all
> 2 messing with quantifier placement and/or negations will not affect
> anything but will make for greater confusion than necessary.
>
> If this is all that is meant, then I think the usage is proper,
> useful, Lojbanic and cute (high praise all). My objection to it
> comes from what appears to be some further claim -- made not always
> by & and maybe indeed never by him -- that this usage covers some
> metaphysical specialization, not just simplification of expression.
> I confess that I don't understand what that metaphysical nicety is
> and certainly don't see how {tu'o} is to effect it.
High praise is very welcome. But I'm not entirely clear about your
summary. Can I attempt a summary?
1. Strictly speaking, {tu'o} is meaningless in itself. It is used when
a PA or gadri slot must be filled, but we would rather not fill it.
2. As with {co'e} and {zo'e}, {tu'o} needs to be replaced by an
explicit value before the truth of the sentence can be evaluated.
3. Using {tu'o} griceanly implicates that choice of explicit replacement
for it is immaterial: if the choice mattered, the speaker would have
used the desired quantifier.
4. The choice of quantifier is immaterial precisely when the extension
is a singleton set.
5. When 'referring' to singleton categories, it is useful to signal this,
because singleton categories are largely impervious to logical scope,
and keeping track of issues of logical scope is mentally burdensome.
Signalling the singletonhood spares users unnecessary mental effort.
6. Reasons for {lo pa broda} and {le pa broda} not being satisfactory
solutions include: (a) arguably, {lo pa} makes an unwanted additional
truthconditional *claim* about singletonhood; (b) it is perverse to
be obliged to make the effort of using extra words when the object is
to save mental effort. {tu'o broda} implicates {lo pa broda}.
7. It is uncongenial to be forced to make redundant lexical choices
that make no difference to the meaning. For singleton categories
the choice among su'o/ro/lo/le is redundant, and rather than having
to arbitrarily choose one of them, it would be nice to have a
word that neutralizes the choice.
8. {lo'e} also serves the purposes that tu'o serves, if --
Controversially -- {lo'e broda cu brode} means something like "If
lo'i broda is conceptualized as singleton, then its membership is
brode".
9. When {le'i broda} is singleton, it is useful to signal this, for
the reasons under (5), and {le pa broda} is unattractive for reason
(6b). Controversially, {le'e broda} refers to the membership of
a specific set conceptualized as singleton.
-- I think everything's covered here. I will revise it in the light
of any comment, and then post it to the wiki as a record. Thereafter
anybody who agrees and disagrees can note that on the wiki. (Those
who just don't give a shit are unlikely to be reading this list or
those bits of the wiki in the first place.)
--And.