WikiDiscuss

1. I think the mess comes out of its deep history, whihc may well have started with (the roots of) "if a child (x) is harmed by an adult (y), x ought to forgive y. This would become a universal conditional by one line of transformations, but the present sentence but another, which puts the condition into presupposition (how can anyone forgive anyone if not harmed by them?) aand carry the forms forward from the old condition to their consequent-anaphor. Messy, but plausible, since it works and gives the right result: this really is a maxim (we could, for comfort, get the {ro}'s by much the same process).

2. Old {lo} certainly does not work for generics (the above case is odd because of the {ei}) but {ro}, taken literally won't do either, since it is false and something true is intended. {so'a}, while literally true, misses something of the force intended. I think the idea of counting rather than weighing is probably bound to miss the point.

3. With some new {lo} (not necessarily any now flying around).

4.?? I take it that the chestnut says that pictures tell us more than words, a lot more than any single word (though probably not more than a text which uses an equal number of bytes). It is not meant to be exact since (if for no other reason) words themselves have different values, and indeed their values change depending on the other words they are with and how arranged. It does not appear to say anything about whether pictures are very informative or not, unless it is assumed that 1000 words is a lot of information.
xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:
> =20
>
>>That's irrelevant. When they do meet, the child should be forgiving.
>>This is not committing the child to the difficult task of seeking out
>>every adult. It is nonetheless a claim about every child and every adul=
t.
>> =20
>>
>
>To me {ei ro verba cu fraxu ro makcu prenu} means:
>"It ought to be the case that each child forgives each adult." =20
>
>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?
> =20
>

1.I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=20
adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=20

• because* of it's lack of ro. And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=20

be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=20
non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=20
but now I don't.

>=20
> =20
>
>>Consider {.iinai so'u cinfo cu kalte ca lo nicte} vs.{.iicai so'a cinfo
>>cu kalte ca lo nicte}. The numbers of lions hunting at night is
>>completely crucial.=20
>> =20
>>
>
>In those claims, indeed it is. But in {ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte=20
>lo cidja} no numbers are mentioned.
> =20
>

2."Some lions hunt at night" means at least one does, and only means that=20
we can no longer say that none do. It doesn't tell us about the habits=20
of lions, which I cannot see as anything but a ro statement (if part of=20
the definition of lion) or a so'a statement (if an observed property,=20
god forbid you should neglect the outliers).

>>And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be
>>pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite=
..
>> =20
>>
>
>The fact that you can quantify does not mean that you must.
>If you want to be precise with tense, you can be. But Lojban does
>not force it upon you. If you want to be precise with number, you=20
>can be. But Lojban does not force it upon you. A claim with the=20
>minimal gadri {lo} cannot be false on account of number, because
>it doesn't carry any info on number.
> =20
>

3.Other than the trivial case of zero, I agree.

>>>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
>>>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
>>Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "ever=
y
>>picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless
>>of its figurative sense.
>> =20
>>
>
>If you want to make the extensional claim, nothing stops you,
>but it has a different sense altogether. You'd be saying that
>every picture is very informative instead of comparing the
>informative value of pictures vs. words.
> =20
>

4. What's the difference? The informative value of pictures vs. words is=20
exactly a word:picture mapping.

>>How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean=
t=3D
>>hat we=3D20
>>loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?
>> =20
>>
>
>It is very similar to "Every woman should wear an apron", yes.
>In Lojban you can be as precise or imprecise as you like.
>From least to most precise:
>
> ei lo ninmu cu dasni lo cragai
> =20
>

Here is where the meaning really changes. Above is a very weak claim,=20
below is much stronger. I won't assume that lo is ro, although it's not=20
ruled out. But this is normative usage, and there's a big difference=20
between a maxim the speaker feels should apply to the type, and an=20
observational statement which may or may not generalize to the type (and=20
thus lo equal ro).

> ei ro ninmu cu dasni lo cragai
> ei ro ninmu cu dasni su'o cragai
> ei ro ninmu cu dasni pa cragai
>
>And of course you can add tense:
>
> ei ro ninmu ca ca'o ca'a dasni pa cragai
>
>"Every woman should at this moment be actually wearing an apron."=20
>If you don't express the time some of them might argue that they
>wore one yesterday and so they already fulfilled their duty.
>
> =20
>
>>>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni
>>>>>>The teacher will divide the class
>>>>>>into five groups of four students.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>
>>What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the
>>example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except tha=
t
>>he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders.=20
>> =20
>>
>
>And who might never exist, right.
> =20
>

He exists like a fictional story character. But I think we understand=20
each other here.

>>If each reference to
>>a teacher referred once again to any, non-specific teacher, each
>>sentence might refer to a bi'u teacher, rendering the script nonsensica=
l.
>>We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.
>> =20
>>
>
>Not nonsensical, just more vague. But context will help sort it out.
>When telling a story we don't need to put a tense in every sentence,
>as usually things are told in the order they happened. You can, of
>course be more precise when you need or want to.
>
> =20
>
>>Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any
>>teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teache=
r.
>> =20
>>
>
>If it's important that it's about two teachers then you'd have to use
>number, of course. If it's irrelevant if there is one teacher or two
>conducting the lesson, you might not even mention number.
>=20
> =20
>
>>Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teache=
r.=3D
>> Let=3D20
>>there be a classroom..."
>> =20
>>
>
>Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with doing it that way.
>But let's get away from the idea that there is always one
>correct gadri for each situation and all the rest are wrong.
>{lo} is the most general gadri and so it will practically=20
>never be wrong in cases when another gadri is more precise.
>
>mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>=09
> =09
>__
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com/=20
>
>
> =20
>

--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=
ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=
onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20