Re: "re lo'e broda" is semantically bogus

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> I propose to leave the quantifiers as is, and give {lo'e} a slightly different
> interpretation. (Otherwise, it would have to be {ro lo'e pa}, wouldn't it?)

Well, no.  Remember that the inside quantifier tells how big the set is;
its value is independent of the meaning of the gadri chosen.  The truth
is probably something like "[ro]pa lo'e ro", since we want the archetypical
individual which results from considering the entire set of brodas.

For "le'e" we get "[ro]pa le'e su'o".

BTW, I think that your argument that "lei" (and presumably "lai") want
"piro" as the outside quantifier because they are +specific is incorrect.
Outside quantifiers for masses (and sets) aren't true quantifiers, they are
partitioners (or sumpn like that).

I admit that the meaning of outside quantifiers on masses needs to be rethought.

> > > So we have {re lo'e remna kakne le nu zutsi le sfofa}, because I'm not
> > > restricting it to any special type of remna, just any two.
> >
> > I would render that as:
> >
> >         ro remna remei kakne le nu ...
> >         Each human-being pair is able to ...
> >
> > since it is a universal statement about what pairs of persons can do.
> 
> Yes, but the original "The sofa can seat only two people" is not such a
> universal statement. It explicitly limits the number of people that can
> sit there. Your statement says that all pairs can sit, but it doesn't
> say that a triplet can't.

Correct.  Nevertheless, I still don't believe in your use of "lo'e".

> I think allowing {lo'e} and {le'e} to have quantifiers gives them
> a lot of usefulness. I really don't see much use for them as singular
> abstractions.

Unfortunately, they were introduced into Loglan as such.

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