Re: Quantifiers

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

Chris Bogart writes:
 > ...
 > You didn't trick me, you tricked yourself somehow!  Nanmu *does* mean men!
 :-)

Gak.  I knew that.  Really.

 > ...
 > But what's the central claim and what's the incidental claim seems like an
 > important element of the meaning.

Yes, I was wondering about this.  I agree, incidental claims seem to
have a different status, but I can't pinpoint it at all.  (And how would
you say "incidentally implies" in Lojban?  Is it {nalvajni nibli}?)

 > ...
 > >Yes,
 > >       le ni nanmu ne'i le kumfa cu du ci
 > >would be required.
 >
 > I still don't like it -- I'm not sure how to use "ni" because in any
 > abstraction there are an infinity of possible things that could be
 > quantified.  You're assuming that "ni" is counting the number of items which
 > fill the x1 place -- which sounds like a good rule of thumb to me but I
 > haven't seen it written down anywhere.

Hmm.  Would
        le ni ke'a nanmu ne'i le kumfa kei be le namcu cu du ci

be the panstakingly precise version?  (I'm using the currently floating
proposal for the use of {ke'a} here.)

(I don't know if {ke'a} is always appropriate for {ni}, or if it's truly
appropriate here.  Possibly {kau} would be more appropriate for use with
{ni}?  Dunno.)

 > >This has some slightly odd consequences, though I'm not sure how to
 > >work them with the grammar.  But I believe
 > >
 > >       pa lu'a le xunre cukta .e le blabi cukta .e le blanu cukta
 > >               cu cpana le jubme
 > >
 > >means
 > >       Exactly one of the red book, the white book, and the blue book
 > >               is on the table
 > >
 > >Yes?
 >
 > I think you need 'ce' instead of '.e'; otherwise it's decomposeable into
 > three sentences.

Well, yes.  I know what happens with {ce}.  It's probably true that the
grammar prevents me from abusing the language I want to (and the above
would have to mean something like "One part of each of the three books
is on the table".

Here's my point:  suppose {ko'a} has three referents (the three books
above).  Then
        pa ko'a cu cpana le jubme

is (of course) exactly one of the books is on the table.  In most
contexts {ko'a} could be expanded into {le xunre cukta .e le blabi cukta
.e le blanu cukta}.  But evidently not when it's quantified:  there's no
way to do the expansion grammtically.

 >  Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 >  Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.