WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > --- Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > > PA lo broda = PA da poi ke'a me lo broda
> > > = PA da poi ke'a broda
> >
> > I see, it is the PA that merits a quantifier,
> not
> > the {lo}. I would get rid of the quantifiers
> for
> > quantifiers, but that is another issue.
>
> Quantifiers for quantifiers?

Yes; although Lojban is based syntactically on
formal logic, there is only an occasional
correlation between the two in regard particular
categories. For example, as you know, I would
replace quantifiers in descriptions by redicates
in most cases and by quite different quantifiers
in the rest.
>
> > > OK. So in your system, {ko'a goi lo'i
> broda}
> > > assigns a different
> > > referent to {ko'a} than {ko'a goi lo selcmi
> be
> > > lo broda}. In other
> > > words, you would have {lo'i broda} be a set
> in
> > > a metalanguage sense,
> > > not a set in the normal sense.
> >
> > I don't get the difference you claim is
> involved.
> > A set of broda is an abstract structure
> which
> > has brodas as members. This is the normal
> sense,
> > so far as I can see, and is my sense. What
> is a
> > metalanguage set?
>
> I meant that when you use {lo'i broda} you are
> talking
> about brodas, and the set talk only enters into
> it when
> you explain what you are saying about the
> brodas, whereas
> when you use {lo selcmi} you are actually
> talking about a
> set, for example when explaining what {lo'i
> broda} means
> one would talk about sets.
>
Well, {lo'i broda} refers to a set, but a set of
broda, to be sure. I still don't get the point.
{mu lo'i broda} is also a set of broda, one that
contains five of them, all of which were in the
original referent of {lo'i broda}. {lo selcmi}
on the other hand refers to a group of sets — no
indication of what they are sets of. So when I
talk about the content of the referents in one
case I talk about brodas, in the other sets.
What is odd here?

> However, I am not sure how tenable that is. If
> I use your
> exansions on:
>
> lo'i plise cu du lo selcmi be lo plise

But, as you will note, I deny the equation, even
when there is only one set in the group. To be
sure, it is difficult to separate a singleton
group and its one member, since they have so many
properties in common, yet they are ontologically
distinct.

> I get:
>
> [Ex: x is a set & [[Ay: y is a member of x] y
> plise]
> [Ez: z is a group & [[Aw: w in z] w selcmi be
> lo plise] x = z
>
> which seems true enough, unless being "a set"
> whose members
> are all plise is not the same as being "selcmi
> be lo plise".
>
That is finde, but {lo selcmi be lo plise} refers
to a group, not a set.

refers to (a group of)some
> number
> > things from which choices can be made, {lo'i
> > karda} refers to one such thing, an
> unspecified
> > set of cards.
>
> Consider {lo pa te cuxna} vs. {lo'i karda}
> then.
> Or {le pa te cuxna} vs. {le'i karda}.
>
> {ko'a goi le pa te cuxna} and {ko'a goi le'i
> karda}
> would seem to assign the same referent to
> {ko'a},
> the one set of choices, the one set of cards.
> But a quantifier on {le'i karda} gets you a
> subset,
> whereas a quantifier on {le pa te cuxna} does
> not.
> So to know how a quantifier acts on {ko'a} you
> need
> to know not only the referent assigned to
> {ko'a}
> (the same in both cases) but also the
> expression
> used to assign that referent to {ko'a}.

Well, the one assigns a *group* of sources of
choices, the other a *set* of cards. So they are
not the same referent.

> > "One of the things
> > from which choices may be made" is not the
> same
> > as "one of the things which may be chosen."
>
> Right, those are:
>
> pa le te cuxna
> "One of the things from which choices may be
> made."
>
> pa le (ka'e) se cuxna
> "One of the things which may be chosen."
>
> I don't think we disagree about those. But in
> your system:
>
> le'i karda = le te cuxna

NO. See above.

> and:
>
> pa le'i karda =/= pa le te cuxna
>
a fortiori

I agree that groups are messy creatures at the
bottom end. "Being in" a group shares features
of both membership and inclusion, so that
singleton groups are hard to tell from their
members — and for most purposes the difference
can be ignored. Yet the difference is there.
This is one place, by the way, where plural
quantification is clearer than groups. Your
comments would have more force if applied to that
situation, although several cards taken
collectively, say, would still be different from
the set with exactly them as members. But in
that case, we should probably not use sets at all
and {le karda} and {le te cuxna} would in this
context be the same — and selections from them
would be cards (though you would have to know the
whole contexts to know this).