[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Of course there is an
> alternative for collective: lo za'u lo broda , which is grammatical.
Has to be {tu'o lo(i) za'u lo broda} or suchlike. At any rate, not
{su'o lo za'u lo broda}.
> I think maintaining the present conflation of loi
> is indispensable for any proposal that will be acceptable to the
> masses, but that's my opinion.
Maybe the masses would prefer things to be straightforward rather than
backwards-compatible with a system nobody understood properly?
> > 1) It's not really true that "There exists an X" implies that X is
> > namable. The number of real numbers, still more the number of
> > real functions of a single variable, vastly outruns the number of
> > names. This doesn't really affect your argument.
>
> "Name" is just an illustration of... uh, what is it, quiddity? You know
> better than me. At any rate, I'm adding a proviso; to make quiddity (or
> haeccity, I no longer remember the distinction :-( ) intelligible, it's
> as good an illutstration as any.
Haecceity.
> > 2) Grammatically, LAhE3 can't be a LAhE, since those (like any other
> > sumti) can be quantified. We need a new selma'o and a new grammar
> > rule if you *really* want unquantifiables.
>
> Disruption to grammar should be minimised if this will pass. We are not
> used to seeing quantifiers on LAhE, the way we are on sumti. I would be
> contented to have the quantifier on LAhE3 be semantically ill-defined,
> rather than invent a new selma'o to have it also be syntactically
> ill-defined.
Or, make the omissible outer quantifier {tu'o}.
> If you, however, are willing to lend support to a new
> selma'o that excludes quantification, and if this does not backfire as
> perceived tinkering but is generally acceptable, I certainly have no
> objection to a syntactically unquantifiable LAhE. In all other regards,
> I do want this to be like LAhE though: it makes sense to speak of LAhE3
> ci lo mikce (Mr Three Doctors).
No it doesn't. {ci lo mikce} is a full sumti & means "there are three
doctors".
> But I gotta ask: have outer quantifiers ever been an issue for li? For
> la'e?
For me & xorxes, yes. Not because we're ornery, but because we tend to be
first to ask the questions that have to be asked.
> I know And wanted a Unique quantifier (currently tu'o) to seal up
> the quantification of such gadri, but I cannot see why the default for
> them would be anything but tu'o anyway.
I'm okay with that. Taking tu'o to be counterpart of zi'o rather than
zo'e.
> > From: Jorge "Llamb�as" <jjllambias2000@hidden.email>
> You can keep
> hoping that the criteria for fixing are broadened beyond brokenness to
> elegance, and I will keep saying that you will never be granted that
> with this community of Lojbanists. You will never be granted it by me.
> We're dealing with reality here.
It would be good to have sight of a workable alternative to the elegant
schemes. Currently the only schemes on the table are the elegant ones,
& I find it very hard to imagine what the inelegant one that the
community would prefer will look like.
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Invent Yourself <xod@hidden.email>
> Subject: lo and intension (was: essentials of a gadri system)
>
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote:
>
>>
> >>> 4. Named Collective. The Collective is identified by name
> >>> (cmene). Plus optional noi- and voi-statements (of cardinality
> >>> and/or Superset).
> >> Is this like "The Smiths", the rock group whose members are not named
> >> "Smith", or is this like "the Smiths", a family all of whom are named
> >> "Smith"? I.e. I don't know what "identified by name" means.
> >
> > It is like the rock group. The plural morpheme in the example is a
> > distractor. "Fleetwood Mac" would also be an example of (4), as would
> > "John Cowan".
> > The proposals treat individuals as singleton collectives. Things don't
> > have to be done thus, but doing them that way leads to a more minimal
> > inventory of primitives.
>
> Right. I revert back to saying that the BPFK can't consider redoing
> gadri from scratch. And CLL p. 124 explicitly rules that lai means the
> latter -- which precludes the kind of bootstrapping And would prefer.
> So The Smiths may be loi prenu, but it's la smits., just as it is lo
> bende, right?
Currently it is {(ro) la smifs} and {lai smifs}. I don't know what either
of them mean. Is Johnny Marr su'o la smifs? Or is la/lai a distinction
without a difference?
> > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email>
> > Subject: Re: Re: essentials of a gadri system
> >
> > Nick:
> >> Accepted. For my part, I have put my contribution on wiki, at
> >> http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/gadri%20report%2C%20aug%202003
> >
> > We need to know what the inner and outer quantifiers are with the
> > gadri and LAhE (and what the 'quantifiers' mean in those contexts).
> > Until then, I can't really evaluate the proposal. I am eager to,
> > but it is currently too underspecified.
>
> I don't see what's to specify. LAhE1 pisu'o loi ro remna = some human
> sludge; LAhE2 pisu'o loi ro remna = a crowd. Both, I guess, admit to
> outer quantifiers counting clumps. Neither admits of an inner integer
> quantifier.
Just spell all this out. There are problems with piPA, problems with
LAhE (as per xorxes's messages on the subject), and so forth. We can
go into these, once we know the details of the proposal.
> > I will say, tho, that "LAhE3 su'o lo" will not work. Perhaps "LAhE3
> > tu'o lo" would work, but that raises the question of what "tu'o lo"
> > means.
>
> Why? After all, there is no extensional prenex requirement on the
> referent of LAhE: lo pavyseljirna is non-existent and cannot enter a
> prenex, but lu'e lo pavyseljirna does exist. So does lu'e ci lo
> pavyseljirna.
No, not unless you're inventing a raft of ad hoc LAhE interpretation
rules. Since {(su'o) lo pavyseljirna} is a quantified sumti, the
quantifer would export to the prenex and provide an existence claim.
> If lu'e ci lo pavyseljirna is harmless for "three tokens
> of 'unicorn' ", why is LAhE3 ci lo pavyseljirna problematic for The
> Kind Of Three Unicorns, otherwise known as LAhE3 lo pavyseljirna cimei
Because, for the same reason, neither is valid on current principles.
> > For any property there is a Kind, that is all. In an ideal world, it
> > would be as easy to talk about the Kind that embodies that property
> > as about "da" that has the property and "it" that has the property.
>
> The million dollar question, whether {lo se ka} will do it.
If we declare that x2 of ka is the Kind, then {tu'o (lo) se ka} would
do, where tu'o==zi'o.
> >>> 4. Named Collective. The Collective is identified by name
> >>> (cmene). Plus optional noi- and voi-statements (of cardinality
> >>> and/or Superset).
> >>
> >> I assume these are (if I can use for now my favoured LAhE-based
> > >> solution) LAhE2 ro lo broda, LAhE2 ny lo broda, LAhE2 la broda).
> >
> > Perhaps: tu'o LAhE2 ro lo broda, tu'o LAhE2 ny lo broda, tu'o
> > LAhE2 ro la broda.
>
> I know that LAhE1,2,3 could all end up in a new cmavo that doesn't
> admit outer quantifiers, but why do you rule out outer quantifiers of
> collectives?
I don't; I take outer quantification to be quantification over members.
I don't deny that we can quantify over n-somes, of course.
> You can have two groups called The Smiths.
Homonymy.
> > In my analysis, "This branch resembles two snakes" is "two subtypes of
> > Mr Snake", & my judgement is that this is a sufficiently ordinary thing
> > to want to say that it warrants having a shortcut to say it.
>
> I'm going to need many more examples than the bifurcated snakes to
> convince myself, let alone others, that this needs a cmavo.
"I need two doctors who can assist each other."
"Every child's favourite meal is a McDonalds burger." [Child X, Big Mac;
Child Y, Quarterpounder; etc.]
> If you convince me, though, sure, that's a job for LAhE (this time with
> an outer quantifier) too.
I agree that a LAhE will do the job.
> >>> 6. Subset-of: "is n% of" (= "contains x out of every y members
> >>> of"), where n can be left vague and have the meaning "is a subset
> >>> of". Binary predicates taking 1-4 as one argument.
> >>
> >> This can be either a tweak to ce'i, or a related MEI cmavo, possibly
> >> with two numeric arguments, probably not (fractions should do).
> >
> > And where does that leave piPA, so'e, "re le ci", & other forms that
> > belong in the paradigm of (6)?
>
> I'm obviously obtuse here. How are they not merely piPAsi'e,
> piso'esi'e, refi'ucisi'e...?
I meant "What do they (viz the forms without a MOI) mean?"
> > We'd also need a de-broken form of MEI.
>
> Remind me how it's broken again.
How to express the property that the members have in common. How to list
the members without redundantly using a nonlogical connective.
--And.