WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:13:12AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell:
> > From Le Petit Prince 2:
>
> :-)

Yes, that amused me as well.

> > Do you wish me to find more?
>
> If it's not too much trouble, it would be great.

OK, here's the thing:

It seems to me that this changes *all* usage of "PA lo", because
suddenly when you said "pa lo broda" and meant "One broda", you don't

  • get* one broda anymore, you get one *group* of broda, which is very,

very different.


" If I say "pa lo re nanmu", I make a much stronger claim. I am of
course selecting one member from the set of things which really are men
to discuss; I am also stating that this set is enumerated as having two
members. "

http://www.lojban.org/files/draft-textbook/lesson19

Which is, of course, the most important point: This is a drastict
change from current teaching materials. Dropping implicit quantifiers
seems, to me, much less drastic.

su'o pa lo prenu cu prami do
At least one person loves you.

http://www.lojban.org/files/brochures/lesson4.html

In your version, this means "At least one group of people loves you",
does it not?


Fully expanded, su'o pa lo pa broda: at least one out of the one thing
in the world which can be described (veridically) as the x1 of broda.
Since brivla typically describe more than one thing, it's hard to find
examples, so let's settle for lo pa cevni be le xebro. (There is not
only one God for all religions, but there is only one God for that
religion.)

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=only

I can't decied if the stuff on
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=sumti+qualifiers agrees
with you or not.

19 May 2003 14:23:19 <tsali> ci re'u ca pa lo cacra

http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/2003_05_20-02_22.txt

Again, your version would be "Three times in one *group* of hours".

That was just from searching on 'site:www.lojban.org "pa lo"', and I
ommited most of the ones that used only an outer quantifier.

I immediately see one example from searching on "re lo".

> > The regularity is in usage. The outer quantifier works the same for
> > *all* gadri *except* lo.
>
> *all* is le and la, right?
> It certainly doesn't work like that for loi, lei, lai, lo'i, le'i,
> la'i, lo'e and le'e.

You have very few examples of quantification of those ones. However,
those all say "An outer quantifier can be used to indicate a subset of
that cardinality ", or "subgroup" instead of subset. la and le say " An
outer quantifier can be used to quantify over members of the group."

Ignoring lo'e and le'e, of course.

If those two are different, I don't understand one or the other.

The only example of quantification of these articles is "ro le verba",
which helps very little.

If "indicate a subset of that cardinality" and "quantify over members of
the group" mean substantially different things, then on behalf of slow
people everywhere I request more verbosity. "In other words, ..." would
be nice. More examlpes would be nice too.

> > Quite frankly, I'd rather that all quantifiers couted groups, but
> > that would break past usage much more badly.
>
> If you have more than one group in mind, you can still manage with
> {le}:
>
> le ci lo mu broda
> The three five-brodas

I had no idea that was legal.

> {le} points to a single thing you have in mind (in that example the
> single thing is the group of three five-brodas). You can quantify over
> members of the thing, but not over instances.
>
> {lo} points to the predicate that must be satsfied. The natural thing
> to quantify over are the things that satisfy the predicate, not the
> members of a group that satisfies the predicate.

I understand your point; it's the change in usage and inconsistency that
bother me.

I will probably not vote No just for this reason, however.

-Robin