From pycyn@aol.com Thu Feb 14 06:31:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 14 Feb 2002 14:30:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 96100 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 14:30:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2002 14:30:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 14:30:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.a4.2122012d (2615) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:30:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:30:36 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a4.2122012d.299d240c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13286 --part1_a4.2122012d.299d240c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/2002 1:38:49 AM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes: > Are these statements not nearly identical in meaning? (aside from the > special rule for observatives) > > 1. ta melbi je nixli ckule > 2. ta ckule co melbi je nixli > 3. melbi je nixli co ckule befa ta > Yes, but do you need {co} in the third one? Who was doing that? The problem was with {finpe je mirli} at the right end, modified rather than modifier. That makes a difference because it reduces the number of different ways it can be accounted for. Similarly, {ta melba je nixli} seems pretty much limited to the intersection of beauties and girls, not, for example, beautiful things for girls (though that could be {nelxi melba}). Alas, too true, as "Lojban experts" demonstrate almost daily. The best logic in the world, proceeding without checking the facts along the way, will end up in cloud-cuckoo-land. --part1_a4.2122012d.299d240c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/14/2002 1:38:49 AM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:


Are these statements not nearly identical in meaning?  (aside from the
special rule for observatives)

1. ta melbi je nixli ckule
2. ta ckule co melbi je nixli
3. melbi je nixli co ckule befa ta


Yes,  but do you need {co} in the third one?

<If they are, then I don't think I should be rebuked too harshly for
arguing from the assumption that "That is a pretty school and also for
girls" was a valid interpretation of #1.>

Who was doing that?  The problem was with {finpe je mirli} at the right end, modified rather than modifier.  That makes a difference because it reduces the number of different ways it can be accounted for.  Similarly, {ta melba je nixli} seems pretty much limited to the intersection of beauties and girls, not, for example, beautiful things for girls (though that could be {nelxi melba}).

<There was a half-page saying
that many different interpretations were possible, after all.  I took
that to a logical conclusion, I think, not relying on English intuition.
Arguing from a false assumption can get you anywhere. :)>

Alas, too true, as "Lojban experts" demonstrate almost daily.  The best logic in the world, proceeding without checking the facts along the way, will end up in cloud-cuckoo-land.

 --part1_a4.2122012d.299d240c_boundary--