Received: from mail-pd0-f189.google.com ([209.85.192.189]:47273)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBCK5RNPX7QBBBOFGRWRAKGQEIKER7TA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XfjWZ-0004QD-B3; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:31 -0700
Received: by mail-pd0-f189.google.com with SMTP id y10sf480861pdj.26
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version
         :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to
         :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive
         :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=2ja+057D6ApqQgj8zSnTlqGeaE71mUAV23ci5dm1eHo=;
        b=G3IuVm6durcZS2FlPKjJSYTeJQGF/Xf25PuFT3hJ/hrM9sQawWYHttNsv6TZcPRmQI
         xemqImaabsuGJ1BVtLJiI3cYvnIzQikakO6jwW6ZmspuKMTCq2mf12bubys0+pCmhdqM
         PypFsv4k8667FppBCcAob4guB9lV123S24klLI01yO0ZkkXP5ggUCilYiViBp7jfHvdz
         ifcX9V+inzepdCCISSvycIZLz8+tMZeVtvdvrJARSBIdCR+XHT0wtK3vjdlxGX7M1Uf2
         0TDgvdfYX7UMuq6wy+ppx6c7Sg6JO5PCwVSvp+Uh3R3BTe1GDXqq7B6nrXnDeMo/3qYD
         p79w==
X-Received: by 10.182.216.202 with SMTP id os10mr93366obc.8.1413698360654;
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.181.99 with SMTP id dv3ls632957obc.22.gmail; Sat, 18 Oct
 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.49.198 with SMTP id w6mr13455238obn.20.1413698360459;
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fl6si1106840qcb.0.2014.10.18.22.59.20
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a;
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j7so2154420qaq.29
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.20.199 with SMTP id g7mr25682582qab.74.1413698360301;
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-69-249-31-89.hsd1.nj.comcast.net. [69.249.31.89])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f32sm4830821qge.44.2014.10.18.22.59.18
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:59:13 -0400
From: Alex Burka <durka42@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <BC849FEFAC3E431089CBF1040830E144@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <873fd587-472a-43cc-b193-1eda4ce779ef@googlegroups.com>
References: <c2b90d96-7b89-4633-bc33-6e42b16d705c@googlegroups.com>
 <20141018011419.GF12268@mercury.ccil.org>
 <873fd587-472a-43cc-b193-1eda4ce779ef@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: durka42@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=durka42@gmail.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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="54435331_7ab49daf_320"
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--54435331_7ab49daf_320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline



On Saturday, October 18, 2014 at 11:58 AM, mukti wrote:

> 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"=20
> > whereas the Fregean claim is "ro da poi broda cu brode".=20
>=20
> BPFK gadri formally defines "PA broda" as "PA da poi broda". Does the dis=
tinction you are making survive this definition, or are you describing the =
status quo ante BPFK?
> =20
> > if we assume that "ro" has existential import: then "ro broda cu brode"=
 requires that=20
> > there are brodas, whereas "ro da poi broda cu brode" requires only that=
=20
> > there are das.  The latter is true except in a completely empty univers=
e,=20
>=20
> If I understand, you describe an interpretation of {ro da poi broda cu br=
ode} 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".
>=20
> Presumably, even if the "importingness" of {ro} is limited to {da}, {ro} =
can still be said to quantify {da poi broda}: Otherwise, assuming that othe=
r PA work similiarly, {ci da poi gerku} would claim precisely three "das" i=
n the universe, indicating among them an unspecified number of those which =
{gerku}.
Yeah, I agree with you here.
>=20
> Is the idea that, in limiting the importingness of {ro} to {da} while qua=
ntifying 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 scena=
rio {ro broda}, for example, what about {ro lo broda}?
>=20
> 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 log=
ic? 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=
?
Can you explain this question further (if it would derail the thread, don't=
 do it)?
>=20
> 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 o=
ther construction that preserves import) still inconsistent in regard to ne=
gation boundaries?
This is the $64K question, pe'i...=20
>=20
> > > Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing t=
hat,=20
> > > would anyone care to take this up and once and for all settle the mat=
ter?=20
> > In answer to both questions:  probably not.=20
>=20
> 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 ques=
tion of existential import seems [too] central to go unsolved." Thank you f=
or weighing in.=20
> mi'e la mukti mu'o=20
>=20
> --=20
> 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 (mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscr=
ibe@googlegroups.com).
> To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com (mailto:b=
pfk-list@googlegroups.com).
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--=20
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 e=
mail 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.

--54435331_7ab49daf_320
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


                <div>
                    <br>
                </div>
                <div></div>
                =20
                <p style=3D"color: #A0A0A8;">On Saturday, October 18, 2014 =
at 11:58 AM, mukti wrote:</p>
                <blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:solid;=
border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
                    <span><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr">On Friday, October 17,=
 2014 10:14:21 PM UTC-3, John Cowan wrote:<blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>Lo=
jban 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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>BPFK gadri formally defines "PA =
broda" as "PA da poi broda". Does the distinction you are making survive th=
is definition, or are you describing the status quo ante BPFK?</div><div>&n=
bsp;<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I understand, yo=
u describe an interpretation of {ro da poi broda cu brode} such that the "e=
xistential import" of {ro} applies only to {da} rather than to {da poi brod=
a} -- i.e. it "requires only that there are das".<br></div><div><br></div><=
div>Presumably, even if the "importingness" of {ro} is limited to {da}, {ro=
} can still be said to quantify {da poi broda}: Otherwise, assuming that ot=
her PA work similiarly, {ci da poi gerku} would claim precisely three "das"=
 in the universe, indicating among them an unspecified number of those whic=
h {gerku}.</div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div>Yeah, I agree wi=
th you here.</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:soli=
d;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span><div><div><div=
 dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div><div>Is the idea that, in limiting the imp=
ortingness of {ro} to {da} while quantifying the entire term, that if in fa=
ct there are no "das" which {broda}, the statement may be vacuously true? A=
nd although you ruled out this scenario {ro broda}, for example, what about=
 {ro lo broda}?</div><div><br></div><div>Suppose {lo broda} describes an ir=
reducible plural. In that case, is {ro lo broda cu brode} false per classic=
al logical logic or true per modern logic? Would the answer be different fo=
r {ro lo no broda}, or for {ro lo broda} in a universe without brodas, prov=
iding that either of these are possible?</div></div></div></div></div></spa=
n></blockquote><div>Can you explain this question further (if it would dera=
il the thread, don't do it)?</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border=
-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><spa=
n><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div><div>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?</div=
></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div>This is the $64K question=
, pe'i...&nbsp;</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"border-left-style:s=
olid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"><span><div><div><=
div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>&g=
t; Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing that=
, =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></div></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/convers=
ations/messages/89">an old jboske thread</a>,&nbsp;<span style=3D"line-heig=
ht: 18px;">"the question of existential import seems [too] central to go un=
solved."</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 "=
BPFK" 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>
</div></div></span>
                =20
                =20
                =20
                =20
                </blockquote>
                =20
                <div>
                    <br>
                </div>
           =20

<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 />

--54435331_7ab49daf_320--