From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 18 07:10:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 14:10:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 5019 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 14:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 14:10:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 14:10:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.c4.12dc5d5f (4254) for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6638 --part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/17/2001 11:58:59 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > > {ji'a}, however, does not change truth values, so is not a case in poi= nt. >=20 > So you don't see a problem in something like: >=20 > pa da nenri le tanxe i le bolci ji'a cu go'i > "Exactly one thing is in the box, the ball too is in the box." >=20 > There is nothing strange about that sentence if we remove {ji'a}, > but adding it makes it very weird. In that sense I think it affects > truth values. And {po'o} is much like it in my mind, the > "no additional" that it contains is just like the "in addition to" > that {ji'a} contains. They both affect the truth value in the same > sense, if they affect it at all. >=20 Yes, the sample sentence is strange -- but it is not false (assuming that {= le=20 bolci cu go'i}is not false). {ji'a} is the wrong discursive to use at this= =20 point; {sa'e} would be better or some other "namely rider." The "in additio= n"=20 is the remark, not the thing mentioned in the remark: " the ball too" is=20 sloppy translating for "moreover the ball." Having said that, I recognize that the conventions that are built into the= =20 language are being violated all the time, that "usage is deciding" and=20 changing the language even during the freeze, which turns out, as a=20 consequence, to have been a someone misguided idea. Still, there is no har= m=20 -- and possibly some good -- in trying to learn and use the language as it= =20 was intended for a while before we go off and make something livable but=20 sloppy out of it. I say it frequently (well, things of that form, all my cats are in the=20 sandbox in the sky) "only my wife likes olives and even she can't stand them" Even English is= =20 occasionally a logical language, and even if it weren't, Lojban is.=20=20 Since Lojban has consistently refused to give existential import to=20 universally quantified terms (and it has repeatedly over nearly 50 years), = it=20 is stuck with the situation that "only S are P" does not entail that some S= =20 are P or even that there are some Ss or some Ps. In most cases, you can ge= t=20 a Gricean implicature to that effect, but that is cancellable by context --= =20 including factual additions.=20=20 "Only the brave deserve the fair" =3D "None but the brave deserve the fair"= =3D=20 "No one that is not brave deserves the fair" and so on, each step making it= =20 clearer that no commitment is made to there being either a brave person or = a=20 person who deserves the fair. <> >Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part of the >language of logic?=A0 Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined. I don't know, it is never needed in normal usage, and almost every time when it is used, it is misused.> Here is a "normal" usage where it precisely is needed and in its most corre= ct=20 form. How is it misused? As another "is"?=20 <, but "only the cat likes that chair" does imply that the cat likes that chair. It is not just a case of "only Ss are Ps".> What is it a case of, then? Surely the fact that the subject is singular=20 does not alter the logic so completely -- especially if it can take the sam= e=20 quantifier expression as the general case. --part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/17/2001 11:58:59 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

> {ji'a}, howeve= r, does not change truth values, so is not a case in point.

So you don't see a problem in something like:

pa da nenri le tanxe i le bolci ji'a cu go'i
"Exactly one thing is in the box, the ball too is in the box."

There is nothing strange about that sentence if we remove {ji'a},
but adding it makes it very weird. In that sense I think it affects
truth values. And {po'o} is much like it in my mind, the
"no additional" that it contains is just like the "in addition to"
that {ji'a} contains. They both affect the truth value in the same
sense, if they affect it at all.

Yes, the sample sentence is strange -- but it is not false (assuming th= at {le=20
bolci cu go'i}is not false). {ji'a} is the wrong discursive to us= e at this=20
point; {sa'e} would be better or some other "namely rider." The "in add= ition"=20
is the remark, not the thing mentioned in the remark: " the ball too" i= s=20
sloppy translating for "moreover the ball."
Having said that, I recognize that the conventions that are built into = the=20
language are being violated all the time, that "usage is deciding" and= =20
changing the language even during the freeze, which turns out, as a=20
consequence, to have been a someone misguided idea. Still, there = is no harm=20
-- and possibly some good -- in trying to learn and use the language as= it=20
was intended for a while before we go off and make something livable bu= t=20
sloppy out of it.

<You can't say for example: "Only the cat likes that chair,
not even the cat likes it." That's contradictory.>

I say it frequently (well, things of that form, all my cats are in the= =20
sandbox in the sky)
"only my wife likes olives and even she can't stand them" Even En= glish is=20
occasionally a logical language, and even if it weren't, Lojban is. &nb= sp;
Since Lojban has consistently refused to give existential import to=20
universally quantified terms (and it has repeatedly over nearly 50 year= s), it=20
is stuck with the situation that "only S are P" does not entail that so= me S=20
are P or even that there are some Ss or some Ps. In most cases, y= ou can get=20
a Gricean implicature to that effect, but that is cancellable by contex= t --=20
including factual additions.
"Only the brave deserve the fair" =3D "None but the brave deserve the f= air" =3D=20
"No one that is not brave deserves the fair" and so on, each step makin= g it=20
clearer that no commitment is made to there being either a brave person= or a=20
person who deserves the fair.

<><Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.>
>Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part= of the
>language of logic?=A0 Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined.

I don't know, it is never needed in normal usage, and almost
every time when it is used, it is misused.>
Here is a "normal" usage where it precisely is needed and in its most c= orrect=20
form. How is it misused? As another "is"?=20

<, but "only the cat likes that chair" does imply
that the cat likes that chair. It is not just a case of
"only Ss are Ps".>

What is it a case of, then? Surely the fact that the subject is s= ingular=20
does not alter the logic so completely -- especially if it can take the= same=20
quantifier expression as the general case.
--part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary--