WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: gadri
> MEGO! I am lost trying to make sense of intensions, Mr. Rabbit, and the like.
>
> I think {lo} should remain as it is, with these possible changes:
> 1. Currently {ze lo ze bidju} means "seven of the only seven beads that exist". This meaning of the use of the inner quantifier is rarely needed, so it should be dropped. If you want to say that there are only seven beads in the world, say {lo ro ze bidju}. {ze lo ze bidju} then means "all of a group of seven beads", not "seven groups of seven beads each", which requires {zemei}. {mu lo vo tadni} is nonsense.
> 2. With some predicates, {lo broda} has to refer to something which may not exist. For instance, {la katr,in. kartrait.djonz. me'andi skagau le degji jipno .imu'ibo claxu lo jgalu}. She's missing the left index nail; it wasn't removed from her, it never formed. So {lo zunle ke jarco degji jgalu be kykydy} has no referent, and yet she claxu it. Thus {claxu} implies that its x2 may be {da'i}; if you need to say that the thing lacked does in fact exist, say {da'inai}.

If you look at what the actual definition of {lo} is in XS, and not the
weird-ass metaphysical discussions going on about it, you'll find that it's
very reasonable: {lo} converts a selbri to a sumti without implying anything
else.

Your proposal for quantifiers is not very well-formed. The {ro ze} in {lo ro ze
bidju} is a single number, though I have no idea what the heck number it is.

I really think that this page needs to be reformulated to clarify just how
simple the new {lo} is. Right now, it doesn't draw much attention to its
simplicity, so people who have tried to follow the discussion assume that the
evil Mr. Rabbit is lurking behind the scenes.
--
Rob Speer