From sentto-44114-16029-1032792805-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Sep 23 07:56:16 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.76]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17tUd8-0001zg-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:56:10 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16029-1032792805-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.94] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2002 14:53:26 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 14:53:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 6602 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 14:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 14:53:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.60) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 14:53:25 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:53:24 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:53:23 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2002 14:53:24.0089 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7631E90:01C26310] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:53:23 +0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o usage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1517 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la pycyn cusku di'e >So the point here is that uttering a sentence with {lo INNER broda} in it >-- >even if INNER is implicit -- commits you to there being INNER broda. But when INNER is {ro} (which is the default) it is always the case that there are ro broda with non-importing ro, and there is therefore no commitment. (The outer {su'o} of course does require there to be at least one.) >We do not say that the negation of {lo broda cu brode}, {lo brode na brode} >is going to result in {ro lo me'iro brode naku brode} when we move the >negation through, Of course not! That's nonsense whether the inner quantifier is claimed or presupposed. >but just {ro lo broda naku brode} where {lo broda} is still >implictly {lo ro broda} (I'm not even sure just what {me'iro} might mean as >an INNER). {me'iro} is nonsense as inner, because the inner is always {ro}, and {me'iro} can't be {ro}. "Inner quantifiers" are not quantifiers. They make a claim or a presupposition about the _cardinality_ of the underlying set, they do not quantify over it. (In the case of non-importing {ro} no claim is made nor presupposed about the cardinality, so the question does not even come up.) mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/