17 views

Skip to first unread message

Jun 20, 2008, 12:50:56 PM6/20/08

to lojba...@lojban.org

In another message (<http://www.lojban.org/lists/lojban-list/msg29949.html>)

I discussed one problem of the "equal scope" rule proposed for termsets in

CLL <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s7.html>, namely that in some cases we

don't know whether the rule is to be in effect or not. Here I want to discuss

the definition of "equal scope", which I also find problematic. The CLL

example is:

I discussed one problem of the "equal scope" rule proposed for termsets in

CLL <http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c16/s7.html>, namely that in some cases we

don't know whether the rule is to be in effect or not. Here I want to discuss

the definition of "equal scope", which I also find problematic. The CLL

example is:

<<

7.5) ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci

nu'i ci gerku re nanmu [nu'u] cu batci

Three dogs [plus] two men, bite.

which picks out two groups, one of three dogs and the other of two

men, and says that every one of the dogs bites each of the men.

>>

For ease of discussion, let me change to a different example.

Let's consider the first line of letters of the qwerty keyboard layout:

Q W E R T Y U I O P

Suppose I say:

ci lerfu ce'e re lerfu cu zunle

Three letters [plus] two letters, left.

According to the CLL explanation, this picks out two groups, one of

three letters and the other of two letters, and says that every one of

the letters in the first group is to the left of each of the letters in the

second group.

Is that statement true or false? It's true. For example the groups

{Q, W, E} and {R, T} are such that each of the letters in the first group

is to the left of each of the letters in the second group. But where does

that leave the notion that numerical quantifiers in Lojban are "exact"

(meaning that if {ci broda cu brode} is true then {re broda cu brode} is

not true)? There are lots of different ways of picking two groups of letters,

with three and two, or many other different numbers of members, such

that every one of the letters in the first group is to the left of each of the

letters in the second group.

Perhaps the idea is not to say that there is *some* group of three and

*some* group of two, but that there are one and only one of each such

groups. In that case, we may consider

ci lerfu ce'e ze lerfu cu zunle

Three letters [plus] seven letters, left.

That would still be true, there is one (and only one) group of three letters

and one (and only one) group of seven letters, such that every letter in the

first group is to the left of every letter in the second group.

But could that really be what is meant? After all, the letter Q is to the left

of nine letters, and the letter W is to the left of eight letters.

Only the letter

E is to the left of exactly seven letters. And only the letter R has

exactly three

letters such that they are to its left. This modified definition would seem to

rescue a partial sense of the "exactness" of numerical quantifiers (at least in

the present example), but it still gives odd results. {ce'e} would then not only

give "equal scope" to the quantifiers but also introduce groups where there

were none.

If we want to introduce groups, then we can say:

ro lo ci gerku cu batci ro lo re nanmu

Each of three dogs bites each of two men.

ro lo ci lerfu cu zunle ro lo re lerfu

Each of three letters is to the left of each of two letters.

and we don't need to stipulate any "equal scope", because two {ro}

quantifiers are already independent of order, as CLL mentions in the same

section.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-li...@lojban.org

with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if

you're really stuck, send mail to secr...@lojban.org for help.

Jun 20, 2008, 1:57:55 PM6/20/08

to lojba...@lojban.org

dei li 20 pi'e 06 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jorge Llambías .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.

> But where does that leave the notion that numerical quantifiers in Lojban are

> "exact" (meaning that if {ci broda cu brode} is true then {re broda cu brode}

> is not true)?

.skamyxatra

> But where does that leave the notion that numerical quantifiers in Lojban are

> "exact" (meaning that if {ci broda cu brode} is true then {re broda cu brode}

> is not true)?

Where is it stated in the CLL that numbers are to be interpreted as "exact"?

That seems like it would limit speech quite a bit, and I personally find it to

be counter-intuitive and somewhat illogical.

mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

--

mi pu klama .i mi pu viska .i mi pu fanva fi la lojban.

Jun 20, 2008, 2:16:32 PM6/20/08

to lojba...@lojban.org

On 6/20/08, Minimiscience <minimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Where is it stated in the CLL that numbers are to be interpreted as "exact"?

>

> Where is it stated in the CLL that numbers are to be interpreted as "exact"?

<http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c6/s6.html>:

<<

In Lojban, you cannot say ``I own three shoes'' if in fact you own four

shoes. Numbers need never be specified, but if they are specified they

must be correct.

>>

> That seems like it would limit speech quite a bit, and I personally find it to

> be counter-intuitive and somewhat illogical.

Counter-intuitive, yes. I wouldn't say it's illogical, but the definition of

"exact" numerical quantifiers is certainly more complex than what it

would be otherwise. {N da broda} can be logically expressed as

{su'o N da broda .ije su'e N da broda}, rather than just the first part

as intuitively expected.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu