From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 17:15:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 00:15:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 73139 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 00:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 00:15:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 00:15:18 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.49]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A6D26FB1 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:46:49 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin jorge: > If I understand correctly, "the usual language of formal > logic" would have something like ~Fab > > This can be described as: > > 1- Negation in front of the predicate > 2- Negation in front of the whole expression > > Lojban does: a~Fb, so as far as negation goes, it either follows > the usual language of formal logic (by 1) or it does not follow the > usual language of formal logic (by 2). But try adding a quantifier. Ax~Fxb. But in Lojban {ro da na brode ko'a} means ~AxFxb. So there is no way that Lojban follows the language of formal logic. --And.