Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c4ed7ea2-88cb-42e9-85ab-2333b72628ac@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
	<5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
	<52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
	<a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
	<52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de>
	<348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com>
	<52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de>
	<6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com>
	<52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de>
	<56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
	<52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
	<d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
	<52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de>
	<c4ed7ea2-88cb-42e9-85ab-2333b72628ac@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 23:55:19 -0200
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eR7Y+tzvQKa2VOV8uyLH3yCOgsUpGqKPzU3a1iDWvhLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134049a01bfd904f26837a8
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a1134049a01bfd904f26837a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is because the following proposition is given as an axiom in the
> universe of discourse (UD1) on the current topic.
> P1:
> ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de
>

 From P1 I get "no da me lo sidbo".


> In this universe of discourse, the following proposition is a theorem.
> P2:
> naku ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo zo'u lo sidbo cu me da
>
> As long as talking about UD1, we are forced to think that P2, that is,
> there is no individual {lo sidbo}, because it is a proved theorem.
>


I don't see how P2 follows from P1.

Also, in P2, "lo sidbo" could not refer to a single individual, but it
could refer to two individuals. Suppose it refers to two individual ideas I
had this morning. Then P2 is true: It is not the case that for every X
among those two ideas, those two ideas are among X" (in particular for each
one of the ideas, the two ideas are not among it. You must have meant
something else.


> Because neither P1 nor P3 is tautology, we are not forced to think that
> one of them is always true for all the universes of discourse. We have
> freedom to choose non-logical axioms and a universe of discourse according
> to context.
>
>
Even granting that, I think that what we're missing is some motivation for
such a seemingly strange universe of discourse. Are there any predicates in
natlangs that tend to behave that way? My prediction is that if there was
some predicate broda that tended to satisfy P1, it would quickly tend to be
replaced by another brode such that ro'oi da poi proda ku'o su'o de poi
brode zo'u de gunma da, and then "lo brode", which would have individual
referents, would be used instead of "lo broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

--001a1134049a01bfd904f26837a8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.kantu@gmail.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);borde=
r-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div><br></div></div><div>It is because th=
e following proposition is given as an axiom in the universe of discourse (=
UD1) on the current topic.</div><div>P1:=A0</div><div>ro&#39;oi da poi ke&#=
39;a me lo sidbo ku&#39;o su&#39;oi de zo&#39;u de me da ijenai da me de</d=
iv>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=A0From P1 I get &quot;no da me lo s=
idbo&quot;.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204=
,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div></div><div>In this universe of discourse, the followi=
ng proposition is a theorem.</div><div>P2:</div><div>naku ro&#39;oi da poi =
ke&#39;a me lo sidbo zo&#39;u lo sidbo cu me da</div><div><br></div><div>
As long as talking about UD1, we are forced to think that P2, that is, ther=
e is no individual {lo sidbo}, because it is a proved theorem.</div></div><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t see how P2 follo=
ws from P1.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, in P2, &quot;lo sidbo&quot; could not refer to a =
single individual, but it could refer to two individuals. Suppose it refers=
 to two individual ideas I had this morning. Then P2 is true: It is not the=
 case that for every X among those two ideas, those two ideas are among X&q=
uot; (in particular for each one of the ideas, the two ideas are not among =
it. You must have meant something else.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-lef=
t-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div><br><=
/div>
<div>Because neither P1 nor P3 is tautology, we are not forced to think tha=
t one of them is always true for all the universes of discourse. We have fr=
eedom to choose non-logical axioms and a universe of discourse according to=
 context.<br>
</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Even gran=
ting that, I think that what we&#39;re missing is some motivation for such =
a seemingly strange universe of discourse. Are there any predicates in natl=
angs that tend to behave that way? My prediction is that if there was some =
predicate broda that tended to satisfy P1, it would quickly tend to be repl=
aced by another brode such that ro&#39;oi da poi proda ku&#39;o su&#39;o de=
 poi brode zo&#39;u de gunma da, and then &quot;lo brode&quot;, which would=
 have individual referents, would be used instead of &quot;lo broda&quot;.<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

<p></p>

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

--001a1134049a01bfd904f26837a8--