WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > So, what satisfies {pa lo'i broda}?
>
> {pa lo'i broda cu brode} says that of the
> referents
> of {lo'i broda}, however many it has, exactly
> one of
> them satisfies brode.
>
> I don't understand the question "what satisfies
>
> {pa lo'i broda}?" because quantified terms are
> not
> predicates that can be satisfied.

I was using "satisfies" as a substitute for
"refers to" appropriate to quantifiers. Would
you prefer "justifies" or some such thing?

> > It can't
> > mean "one of the things that satisfy {lo'i
> > broda}", since that would always just be
> {lo'i
> > broda} again — and {re lo'i broda} would
> always
> > be meaningless. Or do you think that {lo'i
> > broda} is as inherently plural as {lo broda},
> > rather than being absolutely singular?
>
> Yes, that's what I think.

Well, that is an innovation that I had not
noticed you announced. I would oppose it on
practical and historical grounds: we rarely need
more than one set (indeed, of course, we rarely
need any sets at all) so the extras are
superfluous. And, of course, {lo'i broda}
started life as the set of all broda and then was
moved to *a* set of broda at the same time as
{loi} and {lo} were moved to local cases.

> > >(They
> > > are a special case in that the sumti happen
> to
> > > have a single
> > > referent to start with, so quantification
> is
> > > not very
> > > interesting, but that's not a violation of
> the
> > > general rule.)
> >
> > Well, only {lo'i broda} is guaranteed a
> single
> > referent (unless you mean the group — which
> I
> > doubt you do). Does this also mean that {PA
> lo'i
> > broda} is always uninteresting? If not
> > meaningless?
>
> When {lo'i broda} has a single referent, {PA
> lo'i broda}
> is meaningful but uninteresting, just as
> {PA lo selcmi be lo broda} is when {lo selcmi
> be lo broda}
> has a single referent.
>
>
> > > Could you make a succint list of the
> remaining
> > > reasons? I think I lost truck, sorry.
>
> Hmm, "track" and "truck" are homonyms for me
>
> > the two sides have different numbers of
> > referents;
>
> I admit many referents for {lo'i broda} in
> general.
> {lo'i ro broda} has a single referent, but so
> does
> {lo selcmi be lo ro broda}.
>
> > even if they have the same number
> > there is no necessity that they be the same
> > referents;
>
> I don't get this. In a given context, they will
> be the same
> referents: namely the set or sets in question.

I gather that {lo'i broda} is a distributive
group of sets for you. This makes for even more
practical problems, since most of the things we
want to say about sets — size, inclusion, and
members — cannot be said of lo'i broda.

The point at this place is that {lo'i broda} and
{lo selcmi be lo broda}, being different
descriptions are not compelled to be the same
set(s) — any more than two occurrences of {su'o
da poi broda} need to be the same broda(s). This
is why we have {lu'i} and the like — get the set
that corresponds to the group or the group to the
set or the members to whatever. This does not
happen automatically. (Actually, CLL does not
require that the set and the group be the same
things arranged in different structures but only
subsets or subgroups of the original. I have
never seen a discussion of these critters but
assume that this has shifted in a practical way
to "the". Given that {lo} gives a distributive
groups and {loi} a collective, these qualifiers
would be the way to shift types of predication
while still dealing with the same individuals.
Of course, you do that differently, so that will
not impress you.)

> > they count by different units;
>
> They are both sets, I don't understand what you
> mean by
> them counting by different units.

In the current system — not in your ideal one
(and I really don't think you marked that shift
at all) — {lo'i pa broda} is a set(or even sets)
containing exactly a single broda, while {lo pa
selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of broda of
indeterminate size.

> > there
> > partitives are different.
>
> If the partitives are the {piPA} quantifiers,
> then they
> are the same:
>
> piPA lo'i broda
> = lo piPAsi'e be lo pa lo'i broda
>
> piPA lo selcmi be lo broda
> = lo piPAsi'e be lo pa lo selcmi be lo broda

We'll leave what the hell happens with {piPA} for
another day — we've been around it enough and it
is not relevant here. What I mean is that {pa
lo'i broda} is in current Lojban either (because
of the uncertainty about {me} with a single set)
a subset with a single member or that single
member itself. {pa lo selcmi be lo broda} is a
set of broda of indeterminate size.
Never the same thing, except by pure chance.

> > Incidentally, you don't
> > need the complex, what you want is just {lu'i
> lo
> > broda} — without any problems.
>
> That works too, but as a definition it would be
> circular,
> because I'm defining {lu'i sumti} as {lo'i
> me sumti}.
>
> If we define {lo'i broda} as {lu'i lo broda} we
> would
> have to define {lu'i sumti} as {lo selcmi
> be sumti},
> with {selcmi} meaning "x2 are the members of
> x1", or
> as {lo se cmima be ro me sumti e no lo na
> me sumti}.

Sorry, I am still going on the current sense of
these expression, under which the the
identifications you propose do not make sense.