Re: Problems with Abstraction

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Ron:
> > It seems to me that either constraints must be placed
> > on the possible interpretation of {zo`e} (at present the
> > only such constraint is that {no da} is excluded}, or
> > sentences with zo`e sumti will be susceptible to a huge
> > array of conflicting and sometimes contradictory interpretations.
> >
> > It might be countered that because {zo`e} means "the understood
> > sumti", it will only be used (explicitly or implicitly) when
> > the addressee is perfectly aware how zo`e is interpreted,
> > but the fact is that in the case of implicit zo`e this is
> > untrue. In fact I think implicit zo`e is interpreted either
> > as {ba`e ko`a} (i.e. specific) or as {da} with implicit
> > existential quantification of maximally narrow scope.
>
> Doesn't "I don't eat" suffer from the same ambiguity?  One could argue
> that one who is making that statement might just be a somewhat slang and
> sloppy response to "Will you eat these anchovies?" implying that I just
> won't eat the anchovies.  Certainly it would be a lot clearer if the
> said "I don't eat those anchovies" or even "I don't eat those".

Even if true, it wouldn't make a difference re Lojban. But in
face it is a rule of English that the omitted object of _EAt_ is
interpreted as "something".

> > > If you want "everything is not-eaten" then maybe:
> > >
> > > mi na citka roda
> > > I not-eat each something
> > > I don't eat everything
> >
> > That means "not everything is eaten by me; something is not
> > eaten by me".
> > To say everything is uneaten: mi citka ro da na ku,
> > or {ro da zo`u mi na citka da}.
>
> I fail to understand the difference between {mi citka noda} and {mi
> citka ro da na ku}.  Can you explain that?--

They mean the same.

--And.