WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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...

But notice "the set" singular.

> 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.

Uniqueness is hardly subtle.

> 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.

Actually, I have offered a good number in the
process of talking about *Lojban,* all of which
assumed that {lo'i broda} was singular (a rare
thing in Lojban). I am not concerned with how
you develop xorlan nor even whether Lojbban
becomes xorlan, just with getting a practically
workable and coherent system. xorlan may be such,
but the evidence so far is not encouraging.

>
> > 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.

Thgis has been the general consensus for at least
five years, but still needs to be mentioned
officially.

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.

But it is a single set, contrary to your
definition.

> {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.
>
For the obvious reason (though admittedly not
actually used) that plural reference is
incompatible with the rest of Lojban, only
group/set reference can perform plurality duty.

> {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.

Which definition is it that has these properties?
Neither of the appears to at forty third
reading. Notice what an enormous change this is
-- from a quantifier expression to something you
ca,, a constant (whatever that may be — your
explanation in the note does not describe and
real thing).

> > 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.

Well, there is the problem of what {me} means
when applied to a single object with several
members, but since you have none of those
directly in your earlier "definitions" this does
not arise.

>
> 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.

This probably works, even though it is rarely
what one needs as far as I can see. The problem
with {lo} is, in this case as in others is that
it allows several referents when what is wanted
is just one unspecified one. That is, I suppose,
that there is a {pa} missing somewhere in all of
these (I would not dare guess where given how
weird all of this seems to me).