Re: Types of quantification

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la veion. cusku di'e

> One reason to differentiate between {vo da poi} and {vo [lo]}
> is that
> 
> [1]            le kanba cu se tuple vo da
> 
> says that 'the goat has four legs, no less, no more' (according
> to the discussion a couple of years back). If {vo [lo]} would
> equal {vo da poi}, it would be impossible to say
> 
> [2]            mi citka vo plise
> 
> without claiming that during all my life I eat exactly 4 apples
> (if truth values are to be determined over all eternity as Jorge
> maintains).

I believe this to be a confusion.  The no-less-no-more interpretation of
both Example 1 and Example 2 stands.  However, neither one gives a
tense indication, which means that the statements hold as of some
specific, but unstated, time, as if by "ca zo'e".

Now the leggedness of a specific goat tends to be independent of time,
unless it has an amputation or some such, so the question of time can be
ignored in Example 1.  In Example 2, however, time is of the essence, since
eating (unlike having legs) is inherently time-bound.

Jorge's "timeless" interpretations of sentences, meaning that they may be
true of the past or the future or whatever, does not extend to implying
that a sentence without tense markers is true during all eternity!  In
fact, there is now the explicit tense marker "caze'e" meaning "true throughout
eternity" to do that job when needed.

So uttering Example 2 means that at some time or other, during some interval
or other, which the listener is intended to infer from context, you ate
exactly four apples.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.