[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
[...]
#<<
#> 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.
#>>
#I don't see how this comes about -- {le} is defined as "the selected ones
#which I am describing as."
It comes about if that 'definition' is merely a gloss, and the definition is
actually "(every) member of le'i broda" (nonimporting 'every').
#<<
#> 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}.
#>>
#I'll take you word for the relation between {ro} and {tu'o} since you claim
#to understand it (though can't explain it). For the rest, I find it unlikely
#that {ro} changes its meaning when no other world in the class does.
I understand tu'o as lacking any meaning of its own.
I think ro must change its meaning when it expresses a cardinality -- the
same goes for so'e -- because I can't make any sense of ro and so'e
as cardinal numbers.
#<<
#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
#>>
#Lojban is not responsible for your deplorable education. Where did you ever
#learn (let alone were ever taught, I hope) that a universal quantifier does
#not have existential import.
Your average Logic 101 doesn't cover restricted quantification, and
handles Every F is G as Everything is either not F or G, which you will
agree does not entail that something is F.
My handicap then is not so much with the notion that ro is importing as
with the notion that da poi is restricted quantification and that restricted
quantification is different from unrestricted.
#I suspect that you somehow managed to scramble
#together the way that modern logic translates English "each/any/every/all"
#with the universal quantifier itself. The nonimporting translation results
#from the conditional after the quantifier, not from the quantifier itself,
#which imports as always.
I don't think I'd ever come across the importingness of the universal
quantifier being discussed until it came up on this list.
#<<
#For instance,
#my interpretation is that
# no da poi broda cu brode
#entails
# da broda
#>>
#How very odd! (coming from you, I mean). I would be perfectly happy to have
#that, but suspect that the opposite is more natural (though, I do think that
#{no broda cu brode} entails {da broda}.
I take this view only because Woldy quite categorically states that
ro broda cu brode = ro da poi brode and that both are not equivalent
to ro da ga na broda gi brode. -- It's something I find hard to grasp, &
will likely inadvertently forget in usage. But I don't find it nonsensical.
#<<
#It's not a snap if the set is a specific one with its own identity and
#is a subset of {lo'i broda}.
#>>
#Easiest thing in the world: the null set is always a subset and has its own
#identity. What more do you want? I suspect that what you want is {x: x
#broda gi'e brode}, for some {brode} and then want to avoid mentioning the
#{brode} -- why? If you use it, why be shy (or sly) about it.
You suspect right. Why be shy/sly about it? Because often it can be
glorked from context. I suppose {lo'i co'e je broda} would do too.
If you tell me that you have in mind a specific subset of the set of dogs,
there is no way I am going to think you're talking about the empty set.
I'm reluctant even to accept that the empty set is a member of every
set, since that idea has no place in folk logic (= the logic used by
ordinary people with no mathematics or formal logic training).
--And.