Message-Id: <199601231944.OAA14281@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 23 Jan 1996 18:28:01 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: tech:logic matters
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1476

Djan:
> > > My recent proposal that "ro prenu" means "ro da poi prenu" (and not
> > > "ro lo prenu") restores the original pre-Lojban situation.
> > But hang on. The {ro prenu/ro lo prenu} distinction concerns the
> > dogbiting issue. Now you're saying that {ro prenu} = {ro da poi kea
> > prenu} & pc says the latter means there are prenu, so you're also
> > making the {ro prenu/ro lo prenu} distinction do existential import
> > too. Is that what you really want?
> I don't care about existential import (but feel free to try to convince
> me that I should).

If you say "all opposition will be crushed" {ro da poi kea fapro
cu ba selspo}, you'll be claiming that there will indeed be such
opposition. Are you happy with that?

My concern that {ro} v. {ro lo} mixes up two different distinctions is
probably unwarranted, since {ro} is not affected by dogbiting, and
all those quantifiers that are affected by dogbiting do necessarily
have existential import (I think).

> I proposed tentatively the restoration of Loglan semantics:  "ro broda"
> means "ro da poi broda" rather than "ro lo broda", and "ro broda/ro da
> poi broda" and "ro lo broda" are distinct because the former has local
> scope (only over what follows) whereas the latter has bridi-level scope.

But, just to make sure, having bridi-level scope does not mean having
scope over preceding elements with local scope. - {re nanmu cu batci
ci lo gerku} means 2 men and 3 dogs, not 3 dogs and 6 men.

---
And