WikiDiscuss

pc:
> --- Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > {lo'i} is just shorthand for
> > {lo selcmi be lo} = "the set of those that really are"
> > (that happens to be the definition of {lo'i} given in
> > the ma'oste).
>
> Sorry I forgot that you are talking about xorlan,
> with that strange defeinition, not about Lojban,
> which I was foolishly continuiing to discuss.

That is hardly a strange definition, as it is a straight
translation of the English definition in the ma'oste.
The ma'oste has:

lo: the one(s) that really is(are)...
lo'i: the set of those that really are...

so the first and most natural stab at a Lojban definition
of {lo'i} is {lo selcmi be lo}. We can then argue whether
we want {lo'i} to have additonal more subtle properties.
For my part, I don't even see the point of having {lo'i}
there in the first place, so I'm willing to consider any
definition. You say {lo selcmi be lo} doesn't work, but
you have not offered an alternative, nor any example where
one expression could not be substituted for the other.

> I do think that all
> these changes should be mentioned in your summary
> of the effects of adopting your various
> proposals, which change virtually all the
> descriptors, and are generally not backward
> compatible unless our only samples are xorlan
> disguised as Lojban over the years.

My definitions for la/le'i/la'i/lei/lai/lo'e/le'e are,
as far as I can tell, totally compatible with CLL.

{loi}/{lo'i} differ in the interpretation of the inner
quantifier, which is no longer required to be the
number of all the brodas that exist in the world. A
consequence of that is that {lo'i broda} is no longer
unique, as it can be any set of brodas and not necessarily
the unique set of all brodas.

{le} differs in the interpretation of the outer quantifier,
which is no longer taken to always be there. In practice
this makes very little difference because {le} was mostly
used with singular referents. (In theory {la} also would
differ in the same way, but the default outer quantifier
for {la} was taken even less seriously than the one
for {le}). Also, the idea of plural reference was not
explicitly present in CLL, at least not in any formalized
way.

{lo} is really the only significant difference, as I propose
{lo broda} to have referents and CLL simply defines it
as a quantifier expression. Also the inner quantifier
interpretation changes as with lo'i/loi. The definition in
the ma'oste "the one(s) that really is(are)..." is closer to
the proposed definition than to CLL's.

> End of this discussion, since it has apparently
> been a cross-purposes — talking about different
> languages — from the get-go.

Since we are on the discussion section for "Inexact Numbers"
we should really be addressing quantifiers here.

The proposed definition for outer (true) quantifiers is:

PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

which makes no reference to gadri. It works generally
for all sumti, independently of gadri. All that it requires is
that sumti has referents.

The proposed definition for {piPA} outer things is:

piPA sumti = lo piPA si'e be pa lo me sumti

Again this is meant to work generally for any sumti,
independently of its form, all that is required is that
sumti has referents. This definition does use {lo},
but I don't think this use of {lo} has caused any problems
here. All the arguments have been about what counts as
a referent of sumti for particular forms of sumti.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail