From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411152203.AA01072@access2.digex.net> Subject: Cowan withdraws magic "lo" proposal (was: Cowan's summary #2) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:03:14 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411120407.AA27498@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 11, 94 07:15:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1111 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 15 17:03:38 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab mi pu cusku di'e > > Providing this feature is not strictly necessary, but may make the use of > > negation somewhat simpler, > > because it means that both "lo" and "le" commute > > with negation, i.e. are in effect singular terms. > > {le} doesn't in general commute with negation, only in the case where > the inner quantifier is {pa}. This is the most common case though, so > it is fair to say that it commutes. {lei} always commutes (I assume > that its quantifier is {piro} rather than {pisu'o}, more on this in > another post). Your comment on "le su'ore broda" is absolutely well-taken, as I see after a bit of reflection. Okay, "le" doesn't commute with negation either. > > Comment on this proposal? > > I'm strongly against. It is complicated and I think would cause more > trouble than anything else. On reflection, I think you are right. I withdraw it. From now on, "lo broda" will mean "da poi broda", modulo the case of an inside quantifier, which is just a declaration of set cardinality. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.