requantification: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
m (Gleki moved page jbocre: requantification to requantification without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: ([a-z])" to "$1")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


.i la nik. nikolas. goi la .nitcion. cu cmima le lojbo cecmu co'a la 1991nan. di'a la 1994nan. bi'o la 1999nan.
from Jboske:


.i mi cmima le'i runbau nelci krasi lojbo (to se ciksi vecu'u le prosa pe [[jbocre: New Growth Lojbanist|le'i cnino nunbanro lojbo]] toi) no'u sa'enai le'i [[jbocre: 'Tweeners|jbini cedra krasi lojbo]] .i mi pu gunka tu'a ji'a le [[jbocre: Esperanto|bangrnesperanto]] .e le [[jbocre: Klingon|bangrtlingana]].
la pycyn cusku di'e


.i mi se cecmu le [[jbocre: sralo|sralo]] jecta .i mi se dzena loi [[jbocre: xelso|xelso]] .i  mi jbena ca la 1971nan. .i mi ca'o la 1999nan. bi'o la 2001nan. se jibri vi le [[jbocre: merko|merko]] .i mi ca li 2002 ctuca le bauske vi [http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au le la melbn. balcu'e] gi'e se jibri lenu samyminde .e lenu skesisku sidju nevi [http://www.french-italian.unimelb.edu.au le la fraso je bangrnitaliano ckule pe le la melbn. balcu'e]
>(what is the official line on requantifying an already quantified


.i mi ba'o tadni loi dikca zbaske kujoi loi samske gi'e se cnemu le tadnyjaspu pe la bakalaure'us. ''(to zoigy. Bachelor's gy.toi)'' .i mi ba'o tadni loi bauske gi'e se cnemu le tadnyjaspu pe la doktor.
>variable?)


.i semu'ibo mi citri bauske lanli lenu loi ninxelso klobaukle ''(to zoigy. dialect gy.toi)'' cu ve cmavo fi makau zoixy. pou xy. .i zoixy. pou xy. smuni simsa zo poi .e zo nu .e "lo'u do'e le nu le'u"
The closest thing to an official line is the last section


.i mi caza mrilu se judri zoigy. [mailto:[email protected] [email protected]] gy. .i [[jbocre: jondatnymu'e|jondatnymu'e]] se judri zoigy. [http://www.opoudjis.net opoudjis.net] gy.
of chapter 16, which does not make sense as far as I can tell


.i mi ca lenu jmina fi la .uikij cu se judri li 128 pi'e 200 pi'e 37 pi'e 21 -- ne lemi briju pevi la kalifornias. ge'uge'u -- .e li 128 pi'e 195 pi'e tu'o pi'e tu'o -- ne lemi zdani pevi la kalifornias. ge'uge'u -- .e li 128.250.86.21 -- ne lemi briju pevi la melbn ge'uge'u -- .e lo vrici -- ne lemi zdani pevi la melbn ge'uge'u
The way I interpret requantification is this: The second


=BPFK=
time a variable is quantified, there is an implicit
This member oversees the following sections:


[[BPFK Section: Directional Spatial]]
restriction to the same set to which the variable was
[[Category:BPFK member]]


== la .nitcion. ==
restricted the first time. So if the first appearance is


zo nitcion. lojbo cmene la'o gy. Nick Nicholas gy.
{Q1 da poi broda}, and the second appearance is {Q2 da poi brode},


.i se jicmu le bangrnesperanto ke dirba tarmi be le cmene be'o po'u la'ogy. Nicxjo gy.
then this last one is equivalent to {Q2 de poi broda zi'e poi


.i jmina ny. ki'u leka ny. cu rafsi leka lifri kei (to zoigy. ''Accusative'' gy. toi ) fo la bangrnesperanto, gi'eseni'ibo xamgu fi leka fanmo lerfu
brode}. Which quantifier Q1 is plays no role in the second


i zo niction srera fukpi zo nitcion .i lenu se cmene le go'i na se zanru la nitcion.
quantification. If Q1 were to play a role (as the Book suggests)


----
then we would have strange consequences, like {su'o da poi broda}


Originally:
and {naku no da poi broda}, which should be equivalent, giving


.i jmina ny. ki'u leka ny. cu rafsi leka lifri (to zoigy. ''Accusative'' toi) fo la bangrnesperanto, gi'eseni'ibo xamgu fi leka fanmo lerfu
different results for the second quantification


;: ''When I tried to put this through [[jbocre: jbofi'e|jbofi'e]], it tried to connect '''fo la bangrnesperanto''' to '''lifri''' ... is there a terminator ('''ku'''?) missing here or did the fish parse the sentence incorrectly? As far as I can make out, it's supposed to be the x4 of '''rafsi''', not of '''lifri'''. (Additional note... when I add '''ku''' before '''fo la bangrnesperanto''' and re-parse, it does the right thing, as far as I can see.) --pne''
mu'o mi'e xorxes


*Just me being careless with NU...KEI -- n.
See also [[existential requantification|existential requantification]].
**''Or in this case, KA...KEI? (And your ''zoigy.'' is still missing a closing ''gy.'', I think.) --pne'' vi'o

Latest revision as of 14:44, 23 March 2014

from Jboske:

la pycyn cusku di'e

>(what is the official line on requantifying an already quantified

>variable?)

The closest thing to an official line is the last section

of chapter 16, which does not make sense as far as I can tell

The way I interpret requantification is this: The second

time a variable is quantified, there is an implicit

restriction to the same set to which the variable was

restricted the first time. So if the first appearance is

{Q1 da poi broda}, and the second appearance is {Q2 da poi brode},

then this last one is equivalent to {Q2 de poi broda zi'e poi

brode}. Which quantifier Q1 is plays no role in the second

quantification. If Q1 were to play a role (as the Book suggests)

then we would have strange consequences, like {su'o da poi broda}

and {naku no da poi broda}, which should be equivalent, giving

different results for the second quantification

mu'o mi'e xorxes

See also existential requantification.

Retrieved from "https://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=requantification&oldid=89806"