Iain on quantifiers

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Iain:
> If your question is how to say it in Lojban, my preferred solution
> at the moment would be an explicit {ro}
>         ro ci nanmu cu rapypencu ro ci gerku
> which would be equivalent to
>         ro lo ci lo nanmu cu rapypencu ro lo ci lo gerku

I think that in the current state of the language these aren't
equivalent. {ro ci nanmu cu pencu ro ci gerku} means "every man
pats every dog, & the cardinality of the set of all men is
3 and the c. of the set of all dogs is 3". But I'll be pleased
if I'm mistaken on this point.

> There is certainly at least one way to get a universal quantifier
> with explicit existential import - {ro lo su'o broda} (restricted)
> or {ro lo su'o da} (unrestricted).  It's not perhaps quite as snappy
> as we might wish, but I think we need {ro PA broda} to mean
> {ro lo PA lo broda} as above.

Certainly, I think it is far more useful to define {ro PA broda}
to mean {ro lo PA lo broda}, rather than, as I believe it is at
present, {ro lo PA broda}. After all, one rarely wishes to make
a parenthetical claim about the cardinality of the set of
all broda.

Iain to pc:
> > We cannot do this in Lojban, however, because, through a series of
> > decisions, each taken for its own good reasons but without (some
> > would argue) adequate attention to long range effects, Lojban has
> > identified three originally very distinct notions, _ro da poi broda_,
> > _ro broda_ and _ro lo broda_.  Since the first of these was created
> > exactly to have a universal quantifier with existential import,
> Unfortunately, nobody told us that. :-)

Too right. Surely it is obvious by now that there is no official line
on how things work, and so The Powers That Be should take one, by
whatever means official lines get taken. Or at least these discussions
could be focused by debating the pros and cons of a proposed official
line.

Take, for example, the goatleg rule. We may not agree that it's the
best solution, but at least we know where we stand.

---
And