WikiDiscuss

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>xod:
> =20
>
>>It seems to me that maxims, and claims that sweep similarly broad,
>>should be translated with ro, not lo. And since ro applies to every
>>member, and hence to the whole type by definition, then in cooperative
>>usage lo will be used to discuss subsets, often but not necessarily pro=
pe=3D
>>r.
>> =20
>>
>
>Each and every child being forgiving of each and every grown-up
>just doesn't work, as most children don't even come into
>contact with most grown-ups.=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 adult.

>This is just about Mr Child being
>forgiving of Mr Grown-up, or "children" being forgiving of
>"grown-ups", it's not about counting instances. The maxim says
>that things ought to be such that the child forgives the grown-up.
>Which child? Which grown-up? How many of each? Those are the wrong=20
>questions to ask because we are not talking about instances.
>
> =20
>
>>>>ca lo nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja
>>>>At night lions hunt for food.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>This is a quasi-definitional sentence such as we might expect to find i=
n
>>an encyclopedia. Hence, I suggest {ca lo nicte ro cinfo cu kalte lo
>>cidja}, with possible shuffling if needed to avoid scope side effects.
>> =20
>>
>
>It's not a claim about all lions. The context might be:
>"Be careful, don't stray too far from the camp. At night
>lions hunt for food." You are giving information about
>lions and nights, but of a generic kind, not about instances.
>Maybe you're lucky and just tonight there aren't any lions=20
>around hunting for food. It's still the case that "at night
>lions hunt for food" so you ought to be careful.
> =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. And if lions didn't exist, the warning would be
pointless — completely different from the intensional examples we cite.

>>Such a claim is a universal claim, not simply a non-specific one. {ca l=
o
>>nicte lo cinfo cu kalte lo cidja} should not be interpreted as general
>>claim about lions any more than it's a general claim about nights or
>>food.
>> =20
>>
>
>Agreed.=20
>
> =20
>
>>(It should be clear that the treatment of lion in that sentence
>>should be tagged differently than nights and food.) If you want to
>>wiggle out of making an absolute claim refuted by a single wacky lion,
>>so'a cinfo will do.
>> =20
>>
>
>It's not meant to be a claim about how many instances of lions
>do that.
>
> =20
>
>>>>lo pa pixra cu se vamji lo ki'o valsi
>>>>One picture is worth a thousand words.
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>3: Here is another case for ro pixra. Use pe'a as nerd-proofing, lest s=
ome
>>lamer produce a picture worth only 999 words.
>> =20
>>
>
>{pe'a} is ok, but even then, ro is inadequate. The idea is not that
>you examine each picture and conclude that its worth is that of
>a thousand words. The idea is that in general a picture gives=20
>information that could only be conveyed by a lot of words. So=20
>pictures are worth a lot of words, but this is not about counting
>the number of pictures this applies to.
> =20
>

Nothing here convinces me that "a picture" is not simply code for "every
picture". This is an extensional claim about every picture, regardless
of its figurative sense.

How would you interpret "A woman should wear an apron"? Doesn't it mean t=
hat we=20
loop through every woman, point to her, and demand she wear an apron?

>>>>lo ctuca cu fendi lo selctu mu lo vo tadni
>>>>The teacher will divide the class
>>>>into five groups of four students.
>>>>
>>>> =20
>>>>
>>It could be argued that the author is writing a script and has a
>>particular scene in mind, and in that sense is referring to that
>>specific teacher. I would expect the all-but-first references to use le=
;
>>the first reference having grabbed a random teacher out of the air, and
>>the following references referring to that teacher and only that one.
>> =20
>>
>
>Kind of like English "the"...
>
>I read it as:
>
> TEACHER divides CLASS into 5 STUDENT-FOURSOME
>
>The only relevant quantifier in the statement is 5 (4 is part of
>a description). If there is any specificity it is not of the usual
>kind, because the speaker doesn't have any particular teacher in
>mind. =20
> =20
>

What teacher? Any teacher? No, not any teacher. The teacher in the
example. Our hypothetical teacher about whom we know nothing except that
he's teaching Scooby Doo to a bunch of 3rd graders. 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 nonsensical.
We could have given him a name, *unlike* the needed doctor.

Suppose the instructions included a second teacher. Would that be any
teacher? Again no, because "any teacher" could include the first teacher.

Furthermore, this example is totally prenexable: "Let there be a teacher.=
Let=20
there be a classroom..."

--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20
assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=
im=20
Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=
=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."