WikiDiscuss

---

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > {le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically
> > quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.
>
> What do you mean by 'constants'?

Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.

With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and
give a relationship in which it participates.

With quantification you single out a set, and then you say
how the members of the set are distributed with respect to
a relationship.

In simple cases it makes little difference which way you go,
but when you have two or three quantifiers operating or
some other thing with scope, constants are much easier to
deal with.

> > I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more
> > precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From
> > my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be
> > phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.
>
> I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question
> and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.

I'll see what I can do. But I doubt that the "fractional
quantifiers" on sets can at the same time be well
defined and in agreement with Lojban lore.

> Why do you dislike those other gadri so much, anyways?

Because:
a) They are redundant. Anything you can say with them can be
said by other means, usually in more simple terms.
b) They force you to make distinctions that you don't normally
want to make. We have pu/ca/ba for tenses, but we have the option
of using no tense when tense is unimportant or when tense makes
no sense. Similarly we need a non-content gadri for the occasions
when no gadri distinction is important or makes sense. The
proposed lo is such a gadri.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/