WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > > > 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
> predicates
> > in most cases and by quite different
> quantifiers
> > in the rest.
>
> I can't really say I know that. You have said
> things
> like that, but I'm not sure whether you
> consider them
> to be practical definitions for lojban or
> whether you
> intend them as material for LoCCan3. In any
> case, it is
> hard to judge without having the full story
> spelled out.
> For example, would you keep {su'o}, {ro}, {no}
> as true
> quantifiers, or would these too turn into
> descriptions?

Not descriptions, predicates: "is Q in number,"
"is Q of," "is Q for/to/that." {no} stays a
quantifier, a special case, since groups (or
pluralities) assume there are some things
involved. And {su'o} can largely be ignored,
wrapped up in the general framework.

>
> > 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.
>
> So in your lojban you would have no way of
> referring to
> an individual card. The closest you could get
> is the singleton
> group that contains it, {le pa karda}.

Or {ko'a} or {pa da poi} appropriately
introduced. But basically right.

> {le'i karda} is an individual set of cards.
> {le pa te cuxna} is a group containing the
> individual set of cards.
> {le pa karda} is a group containing a single
> card.
>
> So we can refer directly to a single set of
> cards, {le'i karda},
> but there is no way to refer directly to a
> single card.
Yup — with the exceptions above. Now you are
beginning to see what is attractive about plural
quantification, which does refer to cards (and
not to groups).

> > 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).
>
> Exactly. That's why I don't use sets, they
> don't add
> anything.

Well, they always add sets, but we have little
real use for those except in set theory (so the
set former could be move way over into MEX space,
probably). Most of the real work is done — or
could be — by groups, pretty much as it is done
just by several things taken plurally (usually
collectively for the kinds of things sets are
called on for now) with plural quantification.
It does seem to me that you want plural
quantification — or rather the naturalness that
it gives you — without actually using plural
quantification. Come on over!