Re: proposals

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

pc writes:
>             On "any" still once more, if all that is lacking is
>        conciseness, I should note that _pa_ is shorter than "any" by any
>        measure, and _CVhV_ro_, while longer, is about the same relative
>        length, given that lojban expressions tend to be longer than
>        English.  Now, what is lacking -- except perhaps the will to use
>        logic effectively?

I do lack the time and the political will to engage deeply in the
discussion at this time, but I realized I have a statement about any in
my files.  This post was well received on logic-l by all but the person
I opposed.


>From jlk Sat Mar 18 18:59:19 1995
To: logic-l@bucknell.edu
Subject: Re: "Anyone" and "Everyone"

Hello;

I have been reading this list since its inception and seldom post for
lack of credentials.  However I did participate in a long thread last
fall on lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu with the subject of "any".  Lojban
is an artifical language based on predicate calculus.  It has all the
usual quantifiers and them some, but no word for "any".  To say "any" in
lojban it is necessary to write a predicate calculus form with the
desired scopes and grouping and translate it verbatim into lojban.  This
results in long expressions which lack the nuances of English.  The
definitional and contextual pleiomorphism of "any" has so far blocked
the creation of a word meaning English "any" in lojban.

My approach to the meaning of "any" is to try to assign one of the
distinct dictionary definitions to it as soon as I see it.  There are
three of the six in particular that I look for in translating to
predicate calculus.  They are:

1). one, no matter which, of more than two.
2). some, ....no matter how many, or what kind.
3).every
The definition of every is:
3') each, individually and separately; each, and including all.

To myself, I call these any(one), any(some) and any(every).  These
quotes are from Webster's third college edition,1988.  Incidentally, the
definition has been changed since 1973; the phrase "no matter which' has
been substituted for "indiscrimminately" and "random", among other
things.


Michael Kremer said:

"However:  maybe my intuitions are corrupt, but I find it hard to read
the supposed instance of a counterexample to Convention T in the way
suggested. when it occurs on the RIGHT side of the "iff".  It's
different when the "iff" is on the left side, I think.  The following
seem different to me:

The lottery isn't rigged if and only if any entrant has a chance to win.

Any entrant has a chance to win if and only if the lottery isn't
rigged."


------------------------------
GK resumes>

To apply the above definitions to these statements I equate "any
entrant" in sentence (1) to "any(every) entrant".  I equate "any
entrant" in sentence (2) to "any(one) entrant".

Since any(one) means "one, no matter which.." it allows the substitution
of the lottery rigger as a value.

"The lottery rigger has a chance to win if and only if the lottery isn't
rigged" is a false statement.  He can win either way.

MK>
"The first seems to express a truth;  about the second I'm, not sure.

???--Michael Kremer"

GK>
I agree.

Gerald Koenig

pc again:
>             2)The fact still remains that the tensor system is inade-
>        quate (and so, I think, is the spatial vector system -- can we
>        really even box the compass in lojban, let alone lay out a real
>        direction (or full tensor in the mathematical sense) in three -
>        or four - space, as we would need to do to, say, give instruc-
>        tions to an anti-aircraft gunner?)  We can -- and once did --
>        have a tensor form that lays any appropriate metric down: "three
>        days," "seven feet," or whatever is needed


I think the tense system is seriously flawed.  There are two main
problems.  One is the incorporation of the obsolete Greek aorist
definition of intervals.  The other is the general detachment from the
mathematical concept of vector.  The lojban tense system needs to be
kept in close correspondence to the universally used mathematical
conventions.  It is clear to me at least that the mathematical
conventions were the origin of the lojban tense system.

djer