Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

mi'e .djan. .i la .i,n. cusku di'e

> Hang on!  If an omitted sumti defaulted to {da}, then this sort
> or reasoning might be relevant.  But it doesn't, it defaults to {zo'e},
> whose quantification is indeterminate.

Well, indeterminate up to a point.  In general, it cannot be negative:
"mi klama" cannot mean "mi klama noda", because that would undermine the
usability of the ellipsized form.

> "X is not blue" means
> "There exists a Y such that X is not bluer than Y".  Suppose I said
> "X is not bluer than ko'a".  If {ko'a} had been previously defined,
> there would be no problem.  If not, then I still see no reason to think
> it's existentially quantified.  And {zo'e} means whatever I want it
> to mean. :-)

My real point is that the difficulty persists whether you take the
quantification to be existential or universal.  There are always things
that X is not bluer than, and it is never the case that there are no things
that X is not bluer than, regardless of whether X is blue or not blue.
Hmm, let's try that again:

        The sky is blue, but
                the sky is not bluer than a focal-blue color chip,
                which would justify "the sky is not blue"
                by assuming universal quantification;
        Leaves are not blue, but
                they are bluer than apples,
                which would justify "leaves are blue"
                by assuming existential quantification.

Either way, an unfortunate result.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.