From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 23 06:13:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 71616 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.186.e8d5d81 (3956) for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <186.e8d5d81.2ac06d67@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:13:11 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_186.e8d5d81.2ac06d67_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16000 --part1_186.e8d5d81.2ac06d67_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 2:29:24 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes: << > After reading the nice page of xorxes on the Wiki exposing clearly > the controversal sentences, I am not sure any more, and you and > xorxes may be just plain right on the ground of the same practical > and ease of use I advocated. I have to think more about it >> I must read -- and respond to -- xorxes piece (the short stays aol is allowing me on-line cuts into my wiki reading). I think I know what it says, though, and while it is probably mostly correct, the conclusions would draw are not supposrted by the evidence adduced. Gieve Logic and common snese a turn before you make up your mind (not that either of thses have much of a r ecord of success in the logical language). << consider {OUTER lo INNER broda na brode} Would you say that this is true when: the brode relationship is false or the cardinality of the underlying set of broda given by INNER is false or the cardinality of the broda involved in the relationship given by OUTER is false (with of course inclusive or). >> 1) yes 2)yes -- but because {na'i} is true (i.e., {OUTER lo INNER broda cu brode} is also false.) 3) yes << I am not sure of what you mean with 'presupposition implicature'. >> I'm not sure I can give the official definition (it is a piece of jargon, so don't worry if you can't work it out from its parts). The idea, as it affects the present case, certain things must be true for a particular sentence to be asserted or, classically, a particular question asked. To be meaningfully asked "Have you stopped beating your wife" requires at least that you have a wife and that you have beaten her. Failing this the question is meaningless. To answer either "Yes" or "No" to the question is to admit to all the presuppositions -- and to add either that you have now stopped or that you are continuing the beating. 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. If there are not, then the whole is meaningless, {na'i}-false -- and so is its denial. Negations and negation boundaries do not affect this inner value. 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, 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). --part1_186.e8d5d81.2ac06d67_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 2:29:24 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@free.fr writes:

<<

After reading the nice page of xorxes on the Wiki exposing clearly
the controversal sentences, I am not sure any more, and you and
xorxes may be just plain right on the ground of the same practical
and ease of use I advocated. I have to think more about it

>>
I must read -- and respond to -- xorxes piece (the short stays aol is allowing me on-line cuts into my wiki reading). I think I know what it says, though, and while it is probably mostly correct, the conclusions would draw are not supposrted by the evidence adduced. Gieve Logic and common snese a turn before you make up your mind (not that either of thses have much of a record of success in the logical language).

<<
consider {OUTER lo INNER broda na brode}
Would you say that this is true when:
the brode relationship is false
or the cardinality of the underlying set of broda given by INNER is false
or the cardinality of the broda involved in the relationship given
by OUTER is false
(with of course inclusive or).
>>
1) yes
2)yes -- but because {na'i} is true (i.e., {OUTER lo INNER broda cu brode} is also false.)
3) yes

<<
I am not sure of
what you mean with 'presupposition implicature'.
>>
I'm not sure I can give the official definition (it is a piece of jargon, so don't worry if you can't work it out from its parts). The idea, as it affects the present case, certain things must be true for a particular sentence to be asserted or, classically, a particular question asked. To be meaningfully asked "Have you stopped beating your wife" requires at least that you have a wife and that you have beaten her. Failing this the question is meaningless. To answer either "Yes" or "No" to the question is to admit to all the presuppositions -- and to add either that you have now stopped or that you are continuing the beating.
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. If there are not, then the whole is meaningless, {na'i}-false -- and so is its denial. Negations and negation boundaries do not affect this inner value. 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, 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). --part1_186.e8d5d81.2ac06d67_boundary--