From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Nov 05 20:47:34 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 04:47:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 14182 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 04:47:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 04:47:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 04:47:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189I6H-0002P9-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:47:33 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189I5d-0002Ok-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:46:53 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189I5Z-0002Ob-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:46:49 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA64qWiR057069 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:52:32 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA64qWLr057068 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:52:32 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:52:32 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e = ? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?) Message-ID: <20021106045232.GA56938@allusion.net> References: <20021106035715.GA56246@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2450 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:17:18AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Jordan: > > > 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=20 > >=20 > > If ro is importing (and apparently it is), it does=20 >=20 > This is debatable. Firstly, the fact that quantifier ro is importing > does not not entail that cardinality ro entails su'o. Secondly, > it is not necessarily ro that it importing: I hold to the view that > it is da that is importing, so that just as {ro da poi broda} entails > {da broda}, so does {no da poi broda}. This is an interesting approach, and the book doesn't appear to neccesarily make it impossible. All the book says is: Lojban universal claims always imply the corresponding existential claims as well. Actually I just realized that your approach (that da is what imports) can be proven to be correct using the rules in chapter16: mi tavla no da poi gerku =3D=3D mi tavla naku su'o da poi gerku =3D=3D mi tavla ro da poi gerku ku'o naku Because the book says both that "ro da poi gerku" imports lo'i gerku >=3D1, and that these are equivalent, the book implies that the first form claims that the cardinality of lo'i gerku is >=3D1. So I agree with you on this. > > > 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=20 > > > 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"=20 > >=20 > > Well: even though ro is importing, there's still sumti which don't > > entail da which aren't {no da} or {zi'o}: > > no gerku =3D=3D no da poi gerku > > no da poi gerku !=3D no da, and doesn't import=20 >=20 > As I say above, I think it does import. It's not a settled question. I think I said my examples improperly: no gerku cu klama does not imply da klama is what I meant. "no gerku" *does* claim lo'i gerku has a cardinality >=3D1, as you said and I showed above. > > no na'ebo le broda doesn't import >=20 > So in your view {no na'e bo le broda cu broda} does not mean the > same thing as {ro na'e bo le broda ku na ku broda}?=20 I agree that it *does* mean the same thing. > I'd say that they mean the same, and that if they both are equivalent > to a form involving {da po'u na'e bo le broda} then they both=20 > entail {da me/du na'e bo le broda}.=20 no na'ebo le broda cu klama =3D=3D naku su'o na'ebo le broda cu klama I don't see how that leads to da klama But, mi na'e certu tu'a loi logji, so lemme know if i'm missing something. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9yKAQDrrilS51AZ8RAlEfAKCqwWErfZ5swj3PvQMpMmFB1qqh+wCfcnTw ta+/0yCOVD/JWlosEpAenjY= =lc4F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7--