Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r7YuH-00006eC; Wed, 16 Nov 94 03:11 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8332; Wed, 16 Nov 94 03:11:38 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8329; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 03:11:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9629; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 02:08:20 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:03:14 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Cowan withdraws magic "lo" proposal (was: Cowan's summary #2) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411120407.AA27498@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 11, 94 07:15:18 pm Content-Length: 1134 Lines: 28 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.