[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 11/5/2002 4:47:47 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << I see no difference between: >> The second is logic and thus, like logic, has a singular interpretation, though plurality does not falsify it. Instantiation is automatically singular. The first is Lojban and has the standard Lojban inspecific (hence normally plural) interpretation. This carries over to the anaphora, which is not instantiation. << Using {ko'a} down the pike should be like using {da}, with the advantage that you don't have to use ge-gi or similars to make sure everything stays within the scope of {su'o}. In other words: ko'a goi lo broda cu brode ............... ... ko'a ...... is equivalent to: ko'a goi da poi broda cu brode ............... ... ko'a ...... and also to: da poi broda zo'u ge da broda gi ge .......... gi ... da ...... >> Well, I disagree at one level, but don't think it makes much practical difference. This is just a matter in theory -- one of the reasons why doing justice to Lojban in Logic is so hard (maybe impossible). << {pa} as quantifier is more complex than singular terms. The only fool-proof assignments of {ko'a} are with singular terms. Assignments with quantified terms are always messy. >> Which, of course, is why {pa} is only the second easiest way to get singular terms -- you have to get it outside all negations, for example, and probably all other quantifiers that might affect it as well. << >which requires demassing loi broda (or ko'a) to get back to individuals. If the assignment is a piro-mass, there is no problem, as it is a singular term and so it is transparent to other quantifiers and negations. (To get the individuals you can then just use {lu'a ko'a}). Assignments of pisu'o-masses, on the other hand, have the same problems as assignments of su'o-quantified terms. >> No, {piro} mass is not a singluar term in the requisite sense -- it is just a way of talking about the brodas collectively. As for its being transparent, I am afraid I still don't see why: If it is not the case that the whole mass of broda do brode, then surely some part of that mass must not brode. Maybe the whole, but no guarantees. << In terms of individual/mass yes. The problem is that when there is a quantifier, the anaphor must remain forever under its scope, creating horribly extended scopes for these quantifiers and therefore for any other quantifier/negation/etc with scope over them. >> Yes, which is why these anaphora should not be used for non-first expressions. << I don't see how subscripting would help, and in any case it is easy to create even more horrible cases: le ci nanmu na kansa da poi ninmu zi'e goi ko'a It is not the case that each of the men was with a woman, ko'a. No subscripting will help here. {goi}ing quantified terms is tricky. It is important to keep in mind that ko'a must remain always under the scope of the quantifier, and extending scopes indefinitely without creating great confusion can only be done in very special cases. Probably an outermost {su'o} is safe, but not much more. >> Yup! |