jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "kancusu'oi"
[parent] [root]
Comment #3: Re: Why have two sumti slots?
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jan 30 21:12:50 2021)

zozeizeizeizeifaho wrote:
> kancusu'oi and the others are meant to cover the meanings of
quantifiers
> when given two predicates. As in:
>
> > su'o mlatu cu barda
> > ro mlatu cu barda
>
> where the first implies ∧ between mlatu and barda and the second
> implies →.
>
> You can find predicates for su'oi and ro'oi with one argument,
without
> the implied connective, at suzdza and roldza.

Okay, but why not make it arbitrarily many (including possibly infinitely
many)?

Comment #4: Re: Why have two sumti slots?
la du kooi noi zo zei zei zei zei fao ku ne vou biu pei (Sun Jan 31 09:28:57 2021)

krtisfranks wrote:
> Okay, but why not make it arbitrarily many (including possibly
infinitely
> many)?

Since the quantifier grammar allows at most two predicates as arguments, I
hadn't thought about how they might generalize! Now that I do, I'm
confused.

su'oi's expansion uses the associative ∧, and
> su'oi gi [ke'a] broda gi brode gi brodi [gi'i]
(forgive the grammar) would make sense as
> ∃x (broda(x) ∧ brode(x) ∧ brodi(x))

but what would
> ro'oi gi broda gi brode gi brodi
best mean?
> ?? ∀x ((broda(x) → brode(x)) → brodi(x))
> ?? ∀x (broda(x) → (brode(x) → brodi(x)))
> ?? ∀x (broda(x) → (brode(x) ∧ brodi(x)))

Comment #5: Re: Why have two sumti slots?
Curtis W Franks (Mon Feb 1 07:36:24 2021)

zozeizeizeizeifaho wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > Okay, but why not make it arbitrarily many (including possibly
> infinitely
> > many)?
>
> Since the quantifier grammar allows at most two predicates as arguments,
I
> hadn't thought about how they might generalize! Now that I do, I'm
> confused.
>
> su'oi's expansion uses the associative ∧, and
> > su'oi gi [ke'a] broda gi brode gi brodi [gi'i]
> (forgive the grammar) would make sense as
> > ∃x (broda(x) ∧ brode(x) ∧ brodi(x))
>
> but what would
> > ro'oi gi broda gi brode gi brodi
> best mean?
> > ?? ∀x ((broda(x) → brode(x)) → brodi(x))
> > ?? ∀x (broda(x) → (brode(x) → brodi(x)))
> > ?? ∀x (broda(x) → (brode(x) ∧ brodi(x)))


I actually think that "ro'oi" should not require and implication like
that at all. It might require implication, but it is not necessarily
structured in any of those ways. "∀x ∈ A, (P(x))" just means "x ∈ A ⇒
P(x)"; if "A" is omitted, then the universal set/set of discourse is meant
(where "set" can be replaced by "category", "object", or some other
structure, depending on context). The universal quantification is just the
first portion of this clause. But, if we are to include both pieces, then
I guess that I would say that "ro'oi(x, A, (P_1, P_2, P_3, ...))" would
mean "x ∈ A ⇒ (P_1 (x), & P_2 (x), & P_3 (x), ..."; we can, again, omit A.
A phrase "all cats" implicitly means "∀x ∈ A" where A is the set of only
and all cats, too.

Alternatively, we can take P_0 to be the proposition representing
membership in A, which would immediately narrow the range of relevant x
values from the universal set to A. This would introduce an asymmetry in
the the (now-ordered) list of propositions (because it would mean "∀x,
(P_0 (x) ⇒ (P_1 (x), & P_2 (x), & P_3 (x)))"), where "∀x" means "all x in
our discourse space". This would be, I think, the last option which you
outlined.

I am going off how I use it and have seen it be used. We can, of course,
define it in any manner which we want.

Comment #6: Re: Why have two sumti slots?
la du kooi noi zo zei zei zei zei fao ku ne vou biu pei (Thu Feb 4 22:14:12 2021)

krtisfranks wrote:
> I actually think that "ro'oi" should not require and implication like
> that at all. It might require implication, but it is not necessarily
> structured in any of those ways. "∀x ∈ A, (P(x))" just means "x ∈ A ⇒
> P(x)"; if "A" is omitted, then the universal set/set of discourse is
meant
> (where "set" can be replaced by "category", "object", or some other
> structure, depending on context).
>

This is where one of xorlo's weirdnesses shows itself. Single-predicate
ro'oi is supposed to mean that in a domain of individuals, all
combinations of them satisfy the predicate. Treating two-predicate ro'oi
the same, just with the domain stated explicitly, would result in
unexpected meanings when both of the predicates are non-distributive.
Take:

> ro'oi tavlysi'u cu nelcysi'u ja xebnysi'u

Say the domain contains the individuals A, B, C, D, E, of which A and B
talk to each other, and C and D do too. Under the reading with two
predicates and implication, this sentence would mean that:

- A and B like or hate each other, and
- C and D like or hate each other.

Taking the tavlysi'u to specify a domain for a simple
> ro'oi da nelcysi'u ja xebnysi'u
on the other hand, would give a meaning of:

- A likes or hates each other (sic), and
- A and B like or hate each other, and
- A, B and C like or hate each other, and so on for every combination of
A, B, C and D.

So I think only the all-predicate version (your second option) would make
sense here.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?