From lojban-beginners+bncCIycn8S8DhCgmLPvBBoEZ2ujIQ@googlegroups.com Mon Jun 06 05:46:35 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QTZCT-0000xd-G7; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:35 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf2402728vws.16 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:27 -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=Qk7HFY/h5PAAAfz0zynFcxJ6Ti3eMLZCsrMUoo1NMjw=; b=k9mlG+A9g95TdjA8ZmeLeLfkAVWpuVevSULPF56vRXq1kMnHYVGvAGI/ZpdppjC0LG Az1EFwxEwXbzLZwGwPFyVUszZ6x5bqerOufCrQL/OWbbtXCheO3mZdfOiCvno4N+m4hG 6T3OXEjvhSdvEzebZPudoxitrVKOsK6jhgnZM= 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=CW06yPdITBIpjooTMHjjWLEnhIMoz4zT+cyNo3Gp8VVg6p0ki1NEw753vLQDwq8s4+ ykdI8sRdxF0Ak4F8zTRu9l9lj6lcs/lEOY2l+Ol0FA7YIbafd+RClKfBeBUnrLqvGsgs LXH4/iFghzjrd9H6aFiKCLhL7vn3YBrRhtt+I= Received: by 10.220.189.141 with SMTP id de13mr534357vcb.1.1307364384316; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.96.197 with SMTP id du5ls1872364vdb.1.gmail; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.33 with SMTP id dt1mr1658915vdc.9.1307364383083; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.33 with SMTP id dt1mr1658914vdc.9.1307364383071; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com (mail-qy0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dz6si3670548vdb.3.2011.06.06.05.46.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.177; Received: by qyl38 with SMTP id 38so3211277qyl.1 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.130.144 with SMTP id t16mr3501691qcs.146.1307364382773; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.49.198 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:46:22 -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 209.85.216.177 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 2011/6/5 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Michael Turniansky > wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> =A0Again, You seem to contradict yourself. > > I don't think so. > >>=A0If "ro da no mei" is true >> in an empty universe (and I agree it is) =A0then for any value of da: da >> no mei =A0So some thing is a nomei, > > "So"? How do you move from "every" to "some" in an empty universe? > Which thing? In an empty universe there are no values for a variable > to take! That's what an empty universe is, a universe with no values > for the variables. There are no things, how can be there one that is a > nomei? > >> and in fact, every thing is a nomei. >> =A0How can you say one thing, and then flat out contradict it? > > Where did I say that something is a nomei? > > You seem to be confusing variables with values. Just because you can > fill the x1 of nomei with some words and get a true sentence does not > mean that something is a nomei. From "everything is a nomei" you want > to infer that therefore "something is a nomei". But that's precisely > what you cannot do in an empty universe. You cannot infer "su'o da > broda" from "ro da broda" in that case. > That's true. You cannot. I retract. I made an incorrect leap from the fact that ro da broda implies su'o da broda in any non-empty universe. You are of course correct that that's not true in a non-empty universe. Of course the point that we still disagree upon with the "lo no..." case is your (and everyone else besides me ;-) ) assertion that "lo" perforce means "su'o" >>> For me: lo no broda =3D zo'e noi ge ro ke'a broda gi lu'o ke'a no mei >> >> =A0I'm sorry, where did the "ro" creep in from? > > Do you think not all the referents of broda need be broda? In any > case, that's the open question from the other thread, do we need each > referent of "lo broda" to be a broda, or could they just be broda > together, not necessarily individually? For me it's an open question, > so feel free to remove the "ro" if you wish. > >> (I would agree that to >> be the correct expansion of "ro lo no broda" in your understanding) > > Not at all. "ro lo no broda" is an incomplete expression, it needs a > bridi for the quantifier to quantify. It cannot be reduced to a > "zo'e". Please explain further. I'm not sure I understand how "lo no broda" is "complete" and "ro lo no broda" is "incomplete"? > >>> 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. >> >> =A0(And again, only if I said "ro lo no broda") would I agree with that. > > Then you must think "zo'e" can have no values. How else do you get "lo > no broda" to be equivalent to "zo'e"? I think maybe you misunderstood. My response is saying that I agree my formulation is "...somthing like 'ro da poi...", which doesn't have any referents. That being said, I think that maybe I could in fact believe that "zo'e gerku je mlatu" is a meaningful utterance (although none I would ever say) where zo'e's "obvious from context" value is "no da". But I was willing to concede your POV that zo'e cannot be a nomei, since you were wiling to give me an altenate formulation of my belief. --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.