WikiDiscuss

• Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.

• that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo} is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event, which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect). The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something in this world, and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).

• Not probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous. And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna} is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.

• How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a" basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to Lojban. The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at all and so can't be counted against it. Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does anything to help this situation. Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious).. The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.

• Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.

xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
John E Clifford wrote:
>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.
>
>

• It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we

see it is really more of a factor for le.

>
>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.
>

• Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the

proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".

> And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.
>

• Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?

> Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?
>
>

• An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a

secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any
doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each
time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a
doctor is a toy!

• Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be

interested to see them:

>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.
>>
>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;
>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his
>>criteria; uses lo)
>>
>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;
>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all
>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring
>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)
>>
>>

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