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


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

RE: [jboske] inner quantifier of e-gadri (was: RE: putative tense scope effects



pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
> <<
> 
> I've only very recently been thinking about this, but my current thinking
> is that {le'i (su'o) broda} is unspecified about whether the set is
> e-defined or i-defined, tho if it is i-defined, the defining property
> is not specified (every member is a broda, but not every broda is necessarily
> a member).
> 
> >>
> Well, it is clearly not required that every member -- or any -- be a 
> broda, another (unfortunate) feature of e-gadri. 

True, but if one is worried about that, then one can change {le broda
cu brode} to {le du ku noi ke'a broda cu brode}, or suchlike.

> Nor is it required 
> that there be a defining property -- you just pick 'em out somehow.

My point is that what you say is true for {le (su'o)} but not for
{le ro}. For {le ro} there must be a defining property.

> <<
> But, otoh, {le'i ro broda} would be an i-defined set, tho again with the
> defining property unspecified. This is because cardinality ro allows for
> cardinality 0. A 0-cardinality subset of lo'i broda cannot be defined
> extensionally, so it must be defined intensionally.
> >>
> I don't suppose the size of the set (that is, the internal quantiier) 
> affects how the set is selected.  

If it is a specific set with its own identity, yet it might be empty,
then it must have some identifying property besides the simple inventory
of its members.

> And, of course, in Lojban as 
> opposed to Andban and Llamban perhaps, {ro} does not allow 0 -- this 
> is logic after all (16.8(399)).  

16.8 pertains to {ro} as a quantifier, not as a cardinal number.
As a cardinal number in the so-called "inner quantifier" position,
{ro} is little different from {tu'o}.

As for Andban and LLamban, I've only said that I would have to unlearn
less of {ro} as a quantifier did not entail {su'o}. Furthermore, I
interpret 16.8 as making the existence follow from {da}. For instance,
my interpretation is that
  no da poi broda cu brode
entails
  da broda

> And, defining a set with cardinality 
> 0 extensionally, were it allowed, would be a snap: don't pick anything.

It's not a snap if the set is a specific one with its own identity and
is a subset of {lo'i broda}.

--And.