WikiDiscuss

I am puzzled by xorxes use of {da poi} as an
expansion of {lo}, since that position is one he
has frequently rejected and is also incompatible
with his three (so far)different explications of
{lo}. To be sure, it would make a kind of sense
if we had plural quantification, but xorxes also
rejects this.
Still, given this, does the point he is trying to
make hold water? The following things are
incompatible, we are told:
1> in {PA lo broda}, PA counts broda
2> in {PA lo'i broda}, PA counts broda
3> lo'i broda = lo selcmi be lo broda

xorxes' attempted solution is give up two, in
favor of generalizing 1 to encompass the case of
3. Presumably, no one would give up 2. But what
about 3? A the heart of 3 is the question of
just what {lo'i broda} means. xorxes has it
meaning (subject to difference in basic
interpretation, particularly what {da poi} means)
a group of sets of broda. By parallelism, then,
{lo broda} would mean a (distributive) group of
(distributive)groups of broda and {loi broda}
would be a distributive group of collective
groups of broda. The o would indicate an
unspecified (distributive) group and the -, i or
'i what sort of structure was being grouped:
d-group, c-group, or set. But, in fact, each of
these marks indicates directly a certain
structure of brodas, not of structures of brodas.
{lo broda} is an unspecified d-group of brodas,
{loi broda} an unspecified c-group of brodas, and
{lo'i} broda an unspecified set of brodas.
Thus, equaton three does not hold. If we use
quantifed variables in xorxes' pattern, then we
have
{lo broda} ={da poi girzu be fi lo'i broda} (this
would get into circularity — as these
definitions often do — but these are not
ultimate definitions, so we will pass over the
problem for the moment)
{loi broda} = {da poi gunma be loi broda}
(another circularity, but the list of members
seems to be a collective argument)
{lo'i broda} = {da poi selcmi be loi broda}
So {PA l broda} always counts broda in a
consistent way: the indicated constituents of the
structure, to be sure, here referred to via yet
another structure.

Somewhat closer to thta ctual situation (there
are problems, but they do not affect the
generality here)
{lo broda cu brode} =
[Ex: x group & Ay: y in x y broda] x d-brode

{loi broda cu brode} =
[Ex: x group & Ay: y in x x broda] y c-brode

{lo'i broda cu brode} =
[Ex: x set & Ay: y member x y broda]x brode (in
fact i-brode, the degenerate case of collective
predication where the collective has only one
member. Distributive predication of a group is
just the i-predication of everything in the
group.)
In the case where broda takes c-predication, the
quantifier phrase gets simplified to Ex: x group
& x c-broda to which the set case adds [Ey: y
set & Az: z in xz member y & Aw: w member y w
in x]

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > Well, the obvious and natural solution does
> not
> > fit any of these choices exactly: recognize
> that
> > {lo}, {le} and {la} refer to groups (or
> whatever;
> > the terms keep shifting here) as well as
> {loi},
> > {lei} and {lai} do. Then we get the natural
> > result: external quantifiers refer to
> subgroups
> > of the indicated size, whether absolute,
> > proportional to the size of indicated group,
> or
> > relative to the (usually implicit) state of
> > affairs used for comparison.
>
> Let's say we do that. Then we'd have:
>
> 1- PA lo plise = PA da poi ke'a plise
>
> 2- PA lo'i plise = lo selcmi be PA da poi ke'a
> plise
>
> But what do we do with {PA lo selcmi be lo
> plise}?
> We have two choices:
>
> 3a- PA lo selcmi be lo plise = PA da poi ke'a
> selcmi be lo plise
>
> 3b- PA lo selcmi be lo plise = lo selcmi be PA
> da poi ke'a plise
>
> 3a is the obvious first choice: in {PA lo
> broda}, PA should always
> count the number of brodas, so in {PA lo
> selcmi} PA should count sets.
> But, if we go with that, what happens when
> {ko'a} is given a set
> as referent? Does a quantifier quantify over
> sets or over members of
> the set? Do we have to remember how ko'a
> was assigned to a set?
>
> ko'a goi lo selcmi be lo broda
> ...
> PA ko'a: PA counts sets.
>
> ko'a goi lo'i broda
> ..
> PA ko'a: PA counts brodas
>
> So it would not be the case that lo'i broda cu
> du lo selcmi be lo broda.
>
> If we choose 3b instead, then what PA in {PA lo
> broda} counts will
> depend on what broda is. Normally it will count
> brodas, but if broda
> have members, it counts the members. This is
> very unsatisfying.
>
> So these three are not all compatible:
>
> 1) In {PA lo broda}, PA always counts brodas.
>
> 2) In {PA lo'i broda}, PA counts brodas.
>
> 3) lo'i broda cu du lo selcmi be lo broda
>
> If we want a consistent interpretation we must
> give up one of
> those three. For me, the easiest to give up is
> (2).
>
> We can also, of course, adopt an inconsistent
> interpretation. In
> practice quantifiers on {lo'i} are hardly ever
> used, or not at all,
> so adopting an inconsistent interpretation
> won't cause much trouble.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB
> messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>