From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Nov 05 19:30:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 03:30:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 64459 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 03:30:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 03:30:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 03:30:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189GtH-0001xW-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:30:03 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189Gsj-0001wa-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:29 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin02.spray.se ([212.78.193.8] helo=mrin02.st1.spray.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189Gsf-0001vM-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:29:25 -0800 Received: from lmin06.st1.spray.net (unknown [212.78.202.106]) by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3152241999 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:28:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-63.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.63]) by lmin06.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7178F27D2C for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:28:51 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e =? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:30:41 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2444 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:42:39PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > [...] > > But it gets worse. According to Nick Nicholas, in a recent email to me: > > > > > zo'e = su'o de > > > > > > ro bangu cu selfi'i zo'e = ro da poi bangu; su'o de zo'u: da selfinti de > > > (This is read as there being a possibly distinct de for each da) > > > > > > zo'e finti ro bangu = su'o de; ro da poi bangu zo'u: de finti da > > > (This is read as there being at least one de inventing all da) > > This is definitely *not* book lojban (unless it's hiding somewhere), > whether or not jboskepre agree on it > > zo'e == "implied value". This means it can mean things which don't > claim existence, such as "lo'e pavyseljirna" or "lo'i cridrdrakone" > (ok; well on that last I guess it depends on whether ro is importing, > no? -- imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as > lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is > empty, since the inner quantifier is ro. Also I gather that > nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as > well). This isn't the same as "su'o de" ("de") because it doesn't > involve an existential quantifier The book is quite clear that ro as a quantifier is importing (16.8, as pc has just pointed out on Jboske). Like you, my preference would have been for nonimporting ro, but I can't see any grounds for overriding the book -- it's not inconsistent or 'broken' on this point. However, the so-called "inner quantifier" functions as an indicator of cardinality. I don't see why a set of cardinality ro has to be a set of cardinality su'o. This is a subject of ongoing debate on Jboske. As for whether zo'e claims existence, "lo'e pavyseljirna" is held to be a possible value for da, since the universe of things can include imaginaries. The view has always been that zo'e entails da, because any sumti bar {no da} and {zi'o} entail da. As you say: > The only restrictions the book places on what zo'e can represent is > that zo'e can't stand for "noda" and it can't stand for "zi'o" --And.