WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > --- Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> > wrote:
> > > Perhaps we can call it pycyban, for
> ease of
> > > reference.
> >
> > Thanks, but I am just laying out what others
> had
> > done.
>
> I don't recall anyone but you ever proposing
> that outer
> quantifiers on sumti be dealt with as
> predicates. The usual
> understanding has been that
> {Q da poi broda cu brode} is the ordinary
> [Qx: x broda] x brode

True; I swiped tis from McKay because it is so
handy — no wandering long scope quantifiers
around to get in the way of other things. The
instant case does also incorporate some further
factors that were needed (unnoticed) for earlier
systems (though not necessarily in just this
way): quantifiers on variables are global — take
in all the domain, quantified descriptors are
local, just about this particular group (McKay
again).

> > > What happens when you have broda and brode
> both
> > > with undefined
> > > collectivity, but context makes it clear
> that
> > > distributive is
> > > intended for one and collective for the
> other?
> > > Is
> > > {ko'a broda gi'e brode} allowed, or do you
> have
> > > to necessarily
> > > expand to {ko'a broda ije lo'u ko'a brode}?
> >
> > If the context really makes it clear then
> there
> > is no problem;
>
> Ok, then that part works in about the same way
> as "xorban".
>
> > > > {Q lo broda poi brode cu brodi}
> > > > [Ix: x group & x F & x G] [Iz: z group
> &
> > > xCz] z d-H & z is Q of x
> > >
> > > So {ci lo broda poi brode cu brodi} is
> > > materially equivalent to
> > > {su'o ci lo broda poi brode cu brodi},
> right?
> >
> > Ahah! there might be more than three F&Gs
> that H,
> > so "there is a group of three" would always
> be
> > true then. Yes, but so what; this is only
> meant
> > to set up A group, the one I am going to go
> on
> > about, a local count not a global one (even
> with
> > the group of F&Gs).
>
> I'm simply trying to figure out how this
> differs from
> ordinary quantification, that's all.

Yes, this was a problem for you with McKay too, I
recall. Note that the quantification per se is
just over groups and is always (in nonnegative
contexts) particular: "there is a group such
that". Having found the group we can then
enumerate it. This has only a remote relation to
global quantification {{Q da}), which says how
many of some kind of thing there are, regardless
of how they are divided into groups. In Lojban
terms, this is to make {lo} almost exactly
parallel to {le} except for whther the quantifier
is inside or outside the explicit context (and,
of course, whether {broda} is taken literally or
not). This amounts to separating them, as
formerly required, on specificity.
>
> > > And {vo lo broda ...} entails {ci lo broda
> > > ...}?
> > No, for the same reason. There may indeed be
> > such a group, but it is not the one I have
> > isolated — albeit rather inspecifically.
> This
> > gets clearer in the last section, but the
> point
> > is the same throughout.
>
> Then does {vo lo broda cu brode} entail
> {naku ci lo broda cu brode}?

No. Some times three brodas can brode, sometimes
not: enough for playing cribbage but not enough
for minimally surrounding a square table. What
one group does has little relation to what
another one — even a subgroup of the given one
-- does.

> (That's how it works with the normal "exact"
> quantifiers,
> isn't it?)
>

But the quantifiers are on different things here:
the first says that there is a tetrad, drawn from
the group lo broda, that brodes; the second is
about a triad (obviously a different thing) drawn
from lo broda. Of course, if you can draw a
tetrad from a group, you can draw a triad as
well, but that doesn't mean — even if the triad
is drawn from the tetrad — that the new group
will brode. The normal exact quantifiers cover
all the domain {Q da broda} means (among other
things, I would say) that in all the world there
are exactly Q brodas, {Q lo broda} says that
there is a subgroup of lo broda which has Q
members. To be sure, that requires tha there are
at least Q brodas in the whole world and it
entails that there is a Q-1 (if Q > 1) membered
subgroup of lo broda. But it says nothing about
the properties of that subgroup — even, in fact,
that it brodas (and I wonder if that is in these analyses).