From lojban-beginners+bncCIycn8S8DhDJzK_vBBoE4hAI7w@googlegroups.com Sun Jun 05 13:25:59 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QTJtS-000569-H4; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:58 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf2088826vws.16 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=16+10v1Kj1nf5jC0hr1J5D/e6D9Upjb6pxQexDiL+2k=; b=CezarCkxLOtp9h/VyvScaI0XtU8YsabsBSoscl+vWTw+ODaaqBLg8MurQxP0Y28PmP RFYeygcgEf3EGml3DbIMpd95jB8opErcaFqjMTfwN6DFAe/MvL0w2VgJH2wj5oJ5ECoC LarEUNJj7sPG09hWEKSiROc0DAEP4Vb7ie6og= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=4BMc9eA5u5jhdio6v4qzEaYGp3YsFwY0OV02W5HBIRXy7Lmnbc4WmnR67gctikPP9F bL/jWf0JpGdWIS1CrM9eIwODEd8Q81qERKmK4k2XSU2kIgyjbxN+6quiWbBC4y3VGFZw YSHmIJW9yQ81ZPUR+9lp1sf8axJzqzDFtWgZQ= Received: by 10.220.16.134 with SMTP id o6mr102149vca.52.1307305545864; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.76.10 with SMTP id g10ls1676785vdw.3.gmail; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.73 with SMTP id be9mr1389940vdb.25.1307305545057; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.73 with SMTP id be9mr1389939vdb.25.1307305545047; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dz6si3145101vdb.3.2011.06.05.13.25.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.44; Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so2432288qwc.31 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.130.144 with SMTP id t16mr3023024qcs.146.1307305544763; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.49.198 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jun 2011 13:25:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:25:44 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Just to double check, about {da} and quantifiers From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2011/6/3 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: >> 2011/6/2 Jorge Llamb=EDas : >>> >>> "ro da poi ..." translates into English as "each x such that ...", or >>> if you wish, as "each of the members of the set ...". It is certainly >>> not each of the members of the set. >> >> =A0I think either you or I must have skipped a groove here (to use old >> vinyl metaphors). =A0How can you say in one breath both that it >> translats as "each of the members of the set" and "it is certainly not >> each of the members of the set"? =A0 Which is it??? > > Both. > > "ro sumti" translates as "every sumti". > "ro sumti" is two words, it's also a single sumti, it is certainly not > every sumti. > > See the difference? > > You may argue that you were not using the quote marks to quote, but > were using them for something else (to indicate that the words were > not in Engish maybe?) So what you wanted to say was "ro da poi gerku > je mlatu cu nomei" and not "lu ro da poi gerku je mlatu li'u cu > nomei", which is what you did say. =A0Your full sentence was: > >>In a universe where "ro da poi gerku je mlatu" is a >> nomei, "no da poi gerku je mlatu" refers to the same thing (an empty >> set). > > You were clearly talking about the expression "no da poi gerku je > mlatu", so I assumed you were also talking about tthe expression "ro > da poi gerku je mlatu". Mention, not use. > > If what you meant to say was thatin a universe where "ro da poi gerku > je mlatu cu nomei" is true, "no da poi gerku je mlatu cu nomei" is > also true, then I think we agreed about that many times already. > YES!!! That's EXACTLY what I was talking about. It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse if you were reading them as a string. If I wanted to say that a given string is a nomei. (which I agree is pretty much silliness) then I could have used any string. Why would I use "no da poi gerku je mlatu" in preference to "do cu finpe ciksi ba lo fasnu censa" If I wanted to talk about an arbitrary string? If I am talking about lojban, and what to use a string, I use lu/li'u (or lo'u/le'u as the case warrants) . I'm a purist when it comes to lojban. I don't believe in any punctuation that isn't definded (i.e. the . and , ) > Does that clear this bit up? You used quotes for something other than > quoting and I read them as quoting. > Again, I think you were only doing it (or claim to be) to set up a straw man of an argument. >>>>> First you would have to explain how anything at all can be a nomei. M= y >>>>> understanding is that "ro da zo'u da su'o mei", "For every x, x is >>>>> something". =A0No thing is a nomei. >>>> >>>> =A0Unless there are in fact, no things. >>> >>> No, even in that case, "ro da su'o mei" and "no da no mei" are still >>> true. Every thing is a su'o mei and no thing is a no mei. >>> >>> (It is also the case, in that weird special case of an empty universe, >>> that "ro da no mei" and "no da su'o mei". But that doesn't warrant >>> your "unless".) >> >> =A0But that is PRECISELY my "unless". > > But surely that's not how "unless" works. > > If I say that no thing is a nomei, you can't say "unless there are, in > fact, no things", because even in that very case, it is still true > that no thing is a nomei. In the empty universe it is NOT the case > that some thing is a nomei. Your "unless" just doesn't work. > > [...] Again, You seem to contradict yourself. If "ro da no mei" is true in an empty universe (and I agree it is) then for any value of da: da no mei So some thing is a nomei, and in fact, every thing is a nomei. How can you say one thing, and then flat out contradict it? > > (I deleted a lot of stuff where I think you are confusing the > sentences we are discussing with the metalanguage used to discuss > those sentences. If you think I missed something important please feel > free to bring it up again.) > >> However, it's another step removed from the original "lo no..." >> question. > > For me: lo no broda =3D zo'e noi ge ro ke'a broda gi lu'o ke'a no mei I'm sorry, where did the "ro" creep in from? (I would agree that to be the correct expansion of "ro lo no broda" in your understanding) > > For me one of the presuppositions of "lo no broda" (that it refers to > something, because "zo'e" must have some value) contradicts another of > its presuppositions (that it doesn't refer to anything, because "lu'o > ke'a nomei" cannot be true for any value of the variable). > > For you "lo no broda" expands to something else, it is not "zo'e > noi...", which must have referent(s), for you it's something like "ro > da poi ...", which doesn't have referents. (And again, only if I said "ro lo no broda") would I agree with that. Other than the "ro" question, I agree with your framing of our different understandings, and I further understand why you have a problem with the construct. --gejyspa --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.