[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 10:37 PM 1/3/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >Yes. If Nick wants to deviate from CLL then the sensible way to do
> >it is by making the default quantifier the one that is semantically
> >vacuous. That way, bare {loi} actually means "loi"
>
> I think everyone is missing the point of specifying the default
> quantifiers. They are the broadest/vaguest form of the normal implicatures
> when numbers are elliptical, not "what the sentence always means"
Either have no default, or have a definite unglorked elliptizable
value. This halfarsed notion of default that you propose does nothing
more than interfere with Gricean processes, making communication
needlessly difficult. (Because it will be unclear whether the intended
interpretation is the one that is the official default or the one
that might be a little more likely in context.)
I think that the concept of default quantifiers needs to be clarified. I would like people to do so after seeing the debates in The Loglanist that led to defining them. I believe that it came about from the jboske analysis of the time, and it might turn out that we simply could word the concept differently and end the confusion.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org