Re: plural

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I see your claim, and that to me is a strong reason not to equate "lo" with
> a prenex form - it should be locally scoped, I think.

Meaning what?

Do you agree that:

        le re prenu cu citka lo plise
        Each of the two persons eats an apple.

        lo plise cu se citka le re prenu
        An apple is eaten by each of the two persons.

mean different things? If they mean the same thing, what exactly do they
mean, and how do you make this compatible with the rest of the language?


> To me, as far as is
> possible, I want the language to be absolutely symmetrical under SE conversion
> unless there are explicit bound variables (or NAKUs) present.

Then we need a different rule for universal and existential quantification
scopes, different from the simple "order of appearance". I doubt very much
that you can find a better rule that is so simple and easy to understand.


> But even ignoring the impliocations for "lo", I do not intuitively see the
> problem with fractional quantifiers that I do with "Everybody loves somebody".
> Since "loi" is certainly pisu'o, you seem to be arguing that
> roda prami [pisu'o] loi prenu and [pisu'o] loi prenu se prami roda are not
> the same in meaning.

Exactly.

The first one says that for each x, there is a fraction of the whole
mass of prenu such that x loves that fraction.

The second one says that there is a fraction of the whole mass of prenu
that is loved by each x.

Two different claims.

> I'm not sure I see this, but again if so, i will protest
> that it should not be and that these must have a fixed identical meaning.

Which of the two meanings do you propose, and what rule do you use?

> I am not happy with your assertion that quantification defaults make all but
> 1 or 2 of the LE gadri unusable,

I never asserted that. I only said that singular terms (ie the only ones that
are simultaneously existentially and universally quantified) are much more
easy to manipulate. Of course the other ones are useful, too.

> and will insist strongly that the
> quantificational interpretation render these meanings fixed.

It is possible to have a rule along the lines of "universal quant comes always
first" or "existential quant comes always first", but this is not how things
have been explained, and I don't think it makes things easier in general.

If you insist that meanings don't change under SE conversion, give the rule
to interpret those sentences.

> Cowan said that
> the only problem with lo equating to a dapoi parallel was under negation.
> YOu are claiming a far greater problem.

I'm not claiming there is any problem at all. I'm just saying that one has
to be more careful with non-singular terms than with singular ones.

Jorge