TECH: "any" & quantification
Chris Bogart
participate I notice myself flip-flopping on the issue. It's very
confusing, and the only thing I've convinced myself of is that there's
something lojbab is saying that Jorge is missing and vice-versa.
Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle
before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning
referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear. That makes the
"box" example easy to analyze: "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need
a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need".
Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose
of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences.
xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother
xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??)
xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and
Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti
marked with "xe'e" or "xa'a"? If so, let's do more translations with these
two markings and see which one comes out more like the way we think lojban
is currently defined.
Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?
By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?
(if "xa'a" isn't an unassigned cmavo and actually means something already,
the my apologies and could someone clued in on the "experimental list" pick
a better one?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Bogart
cbo...@quetzal.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jorge Llambias
> Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle
> before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning
> referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear. That makes the
> "box" example easy to analyze: "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need
> a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need".
Excellent idea.
> Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose
> of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences.
>
> xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother
> xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??)
The second one is "Any one person is my mother".
Pretty meaningless, but consider a more contrived situation;
Say there are three women in front of us, and I tell you
xa'a pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
One of the three women is my mother.
That's clear. Now the other case is
xe'e pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
Any one of the three women is my mother.
(Because we are actors, and in a play we're doing, the role of
mother is played by any of them, so only one is my mother, but
any one.)
> xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
> xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
Any (one) of us likes any (one) of youse.
Which doesn't say much. (It doesn't mean that every one likes everyone,
even though the English version could be read like that.)
> Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and
> Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti
> marked with "xe'e" or "xa'a"?
Correct, as far as I understand it. I say unmarked should always be xa'a,
while lojbab (I think) says that for {nitcu} it should be xe'e and for the
others xa'a.
> If so, let's do more translations with these
> two markings and see which one comes out more like the way we think lojban
> is currently defined.
I can't think of any examples that don't involve {nitcu} or {djica}, or
maybe {cpedu}, for which the xe'e marking would be natural for {lo broda}.
> Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
> structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?
I'd say useless rather than meaningless in that case.
> By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?
Does {mi viska lo pavyseljirna} assert existance, or the fact that there
are no unicorns makes the sentence false?
Your "xa'a" asserts existance as much as "lo" does, as far as I can tell.
> (if "xa'a" isn't an unassigned cmavo and actually means something already,
> the my apologies and could someone clued in on the "experimental list" pick
> a better one?)
I don't think there is such a list, at least I've never seen it.
Jorge
Chris Bogart
>> By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?
>
>Does {mi viska lo pavyseljirna} assert existance, or the fact that there
>are no unicorns makes the sentence false?
How can "I can look at a unicorn" possibly be true statement, unless I
exist, and at least one unicorn exists? That's why I think useful
transparent statements with the hypothetical "xa'a" have to implicitly
assert existence.
ucleaar
> xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
> xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???
I reckon the 2nd example shd mean: Let x be any n [default: 1],
but no more than n, of us, and let y be any n [default: 1]
of you, & it is asserted that x likes y.
> Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
> structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?
I don't think it's meaningless, but 'irrealis' contexts (descriptions
of things not, or not necessarily, the case) are more likely to
call for "xehe".
---
And
ucleaar
> >> By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?
> >
> >Does {mi viska lo pavyseljirna} assert existance, or the fact that there
> >are no unicorns makes the sentence false?
>
> How can "I can look at a unicorn" possibly be true statement, unless I
> exist, and at least one unicorn exists? That's why I think useful
> transparent statements with the hypothetical "xa'a" have to implicitly
> assert existence.
Right, but it can be existence in a fantasy world rather than the real
one. "There is a unicorn that I imagined" can be true evn if the unicorn
exists only in my imagination.
I don't think unicorns really have any bearing on the 'any' debate.
---
And