WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Robin's gadri Proposal

posts: 152

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 04:49:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Using CLL's {lo}, {lo noda} = {su'o lo no da}, and you can't have {su'o lo
> > no} of anything.
>
> BTW, what would you take {su'o lo ci da} to be in CLL? Does it
> imply/presuppose that there are three and only three things in the world?

If it were {lo ci du}, it would certainly mean that. When it's {da}, I'm not so
sure. It could mean "some things such that there are only three of them". It's
tough to think of a good example for that. {lo mu da} could refer to the
Platonic solids.

> > In xorlo, it seems to be "a 0-some of {da}", but then {da} doesn't work that
> > way - the {no} is the quantifier of how many {da} there are. (If this weren't
> > the case, any claim involving {noda} would be vacuously true.) It seems that
> > xorlo leaves the LE PA KOhA combination quite undefined.
>
> Yes, I was aware of that. I'm thinking of defining it as {LE PA me KOhA},
> now that I have a definition for me. Then {lo noda} is {lo no me da}.
> But the problem is that we don't have as yet a definition for bare {da},
> at least in XS, where sticking a {su'o} there won't do.

My gut feeling is that, for {da} in particular, you should stick as close to
CLL as possible. CLL turned everything into {da}, so it might be a good idea to
leave that alone. And why doesn't {su'o} work there?

--
Rob Speer