Received: from mail-qa0-f56.google.com ([209.85.216.56]:57824)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBDF3JKNIWYOBBJE4RKRAKGQEVFLSL7Q@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XfWOp-0005wa-5f; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:39 -0700
Received: by mail-qa0-f56.google.com with SMTP id cm18sf378637qab.21
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=6toOdnmD1jT2jILMGwnUF6AkeXfEZQYiMvluoWK16jA=;
        b=XeOgeRkrLLkBOuETvvFJbdRrK2olIbGPjXTutnN+P5Pps7YyQ0ISbDX+X7UhqYreIW
         GwZix6HdCKlQI3qlUpWG/PLYsh1it1gPrEa8chabNZnMWYcqu+eUIZAB0EsivbxRvnC8
         esH8uif+TboQxB0dt8cViIkVxKwKtoDNUjuTHtALHneF6uwYa/oH8R5phT/WyS5HeQI7
         3zbN5qmI2cP/iCtEweiJl/godFzotlWad4cj37T1MyWi4thOALIRsjxXnDPKpy8U618k
         9ByP9BmZusg7F92rXxLSuZWu/gIjS2aupq6gcdH80EVqU//Hl3wXsZZ1Kf8Z862bvSoj
         19eQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=6toOdnmD1jT2jILMGwnUF6AkeXfEZQYiMvluoWK16jA=;
        b=00x0PsOan0CLdUKe7BMyrz9mROBo07CmlK7g4Rr3qgMN4AIKL9Mbd0U1bus7ksJViP
         NFa63ca+LlaVxM7aBMGHb/qHk1TUDeWFP2ZtZfOzuIAzHCc+F250+DRolT0Mml73v4tn
         ka3K1/IN8fH+C5s8yjoWvkdcrXtJ+bvpkQAC8n1VSagTjOZpjzA3tTNPVFy1H2h00RYO
         OlqHrNUiPR7uCRubX0kuTaY1u61imxyVc4L6B+1E6pIDnjONFPlardsbWXyQQRyBdh1c
         YoyZfEDR74PlAMSJyqy6H340TLBsgyKCY5rD/X0AgSv84sI4HkoRl3RTKAUEH5rOCJoo
         hZEQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.84.21 with SMTP id k21mr60536qgd.6.1413647908423;
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.140.42.56 with SMTP id b53ls1590140qga.89.gmail; Sat, 18 Oct
 2014 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.44.5 with SMTP id f5mr220926qga.2.1413647907885;
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: mukti <shunpiker@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Message-Id: <873fd587-472a-43cc-b193-1eda4ce779ef@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141018011419.GF12268@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <c2b90d96-7b89-4633-bc33-6e42b16d705c@googlegroups.com>
 <20141018011419.GF12268@mercury.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@gmail.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1862_1755858456.1413647907431"
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_1862_1755858456.1413647907431
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Friday, October 17, 2014 10:14:21 PM UTC-3, John Cowan wrote:
>
> Lojban expresses each of these differently: the Aristotelian claim is "ro 
> broda cu brode" 
> whereas the Fregean claim is "ro da poi broda cu brode". 
>

BPFK gadri formally defines "PA broda" as "PA da poi broda". Does the 
distinction you are making survive this definition, or are you describing 
the status quo ante BPFK?
 

> if we assume that "ro" has existential import: then "ro broda cu brode" 
> requires that 
> there are brodas, whereas "ro da poi broda cu brode" requires only that 
> there are das.  The latter is true except in a completely empty universe, 
>

If I understand, you describe an interpretation of {ro da poi broda cu 
brode} such that the "existential import" of {ro} applies only to {da} 
rather than to {da poi broda} -- i.e. it "requires only that there are das".

Presumably, even if the "importingness" of {ro} is limited to {da}, {ro} 
can still be said to quantify {da poi broda}: Otherwise, assuming that 
other PA work similiarly, {ci da poi gerku} would claim precisely three 
"das" in the universe, indicating among them an unspecified number of those 
which {gerku}.

Is the idea that, in limiting the importingness of {ro} to {da} while 
quantifying the entire term, that if in fact there are no "das" which 
{broda}, the statement may be vacuously true? And although you ruled out 
this scenario {ro broda}, for example, what about {ro lo broda}?

Suppose {lo broda} describes an irreducible plural. In that case, is {ro lo 
broda cu brode} false per classical logical logic or true per modern logic? 
Would the answer be different for {ro lo no broda}, or for {ro lo broda} in 
a universe without brodas, providing that either of these are possible?

Finally, if {ro broda} and {ro da poi broda} toggles between aristotelian 
universal affirmatives and modern ones, isn't {ro broda} (as well as any 
other construction that preserves import) still inconsistent in regard to 
negation boundaries?

> Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing that, 
> > would anyone care to take this up and once and for all settle the 
> matter? 
> In answer to both questions:  probably not. 
>

I hope that doesn't prove true. As pc said in an old jboske thread 
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jboske/conversations/messages/89>, "the 
question of existential import seems [too] central to go unsolved." Thank 
you for weighing in. 

mi'e la mukti mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_1862_1755858456.1413647907431
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Friday, October 17, 2014 10:14:21 PM UTC-3, John Cowan =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8=
ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">Lojban expresses each
of these differently: the Aristotelian claim is "ro broda cu brode"
<br>whereas the Fregean claim is "ro da poi broda cu brode".
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>BPFK gadri formally defines "PA broda"=
 as "PA da poi broda". Does the distinction you are making survive this def=
inition, or are you describing the status quo ante BPFK?</div><div>&nbsp;<b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0=
.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">if we assume that
"ro" has existential import: then "ro broda cu brode" requires that
<br>there are brodas, whereas "ro da poi broda cu brode" requires only that
<br>there are das. &nbsp;The latter is true except in a completely empty un=
iverse,&nbsp;<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I understand, you desc=
ribe an interpretation of {ro da poi broda cu brode} such that the "existen=
tial import" of {ro} applies only to {da} rather than to {da poi broda} -- =
i.e. it "requires only that there are das".<br></div><div><br></div><div>Pr=
esumably, even if the "importingness" of {ro} is limited to {da}, {ro} can =
still be said to quantify {da poi broda}: Otherwise, assuming that other PA=
 work similiarly, {ci da poi gerku} would claim precisely three "das" in th=
e universe, indicating among them an unspecified number of those which {ger=
ku}.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Is the idea that, in limiting the import=
ingness of {ro} to {da} while quantifying the entire term, that if in fact =
there are no "das" which {broda}, the statement may be vacuously true? And =
although you ruled out this scenario {ro broda}, for example, what about {r=
o lo broda}?</div><div><br></div><div>Suppose {lo broda} describes an irred=
ucible plural. In that case, is {ro lo broda cu brode} false per classical =
logical logic or true per modern logic? Would the answer be different for {=
ro lo no broda}, or for {ro lo broda} in a universe without brodas, providi=
ng that either of these are possible?</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, if =
{ro broda} and {ro da poi broda} toggles between aristotelian universal aff=
irmatives and modern ones, isn't {ro broda} (as well as any other construct=
ion that preserves import) still inconsistent in regard to negation boundar=
ies?</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"=
>&gt; Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing t=
hat,=20
<br>&gt; would anyone care to take this up and once and for all settle the =
matter?
<br>In answer to both questions: &nbsp;probably not.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I hope that doesn't prove true. As pc =
said in <a href=3D"https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jboske/conversations=
/messages/89">an old jboske thread</a>,&nbsp;<span style=3D"line-height: 18=
px;">"the question of existential import seems [too] central to go unsolved=
."</span>&nbsp;Thank you for weighing in.&nbsp;</div><br><div>mi'e la mukti=
 mu'o</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;BPFK&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bpfk-list=
+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list@googlegrou=
ps.com">bpfk-list@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list">ht=
tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1862_1755858456.1413647907431--