From nessus@free.fr Mon Sep 23 00:28:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 07:28:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22601 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 07:28:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 07:28:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.25) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 07:28:52 -0000 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760C2500A68B1A for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:28:51 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (80.9.202.154) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D8012080063BA4B for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:28:51 +0200 Message-ID: <003701c262d4$9a24ffa0$9aca0950@ftiq2awxk6> To: "lojban" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:40:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15993 and: > > I did not know that the case was settled. In any cases, the book is not > > at all explicit about this and I think I remember a recent mail from > > xorxes where he says he does include 0. > Well, yes; I too think it includes 0. > lionel: > This being said, I agree that {ro} should not include the 0 case from > > a logical and practical point of view. 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 > > {lo pa broda naku brode} = {su 'o lo pa broda naku brode} > > = {naku zu'o ro lo pa broda cu brode} = {ro lo pa broda na brode} > I don't agree that the last 2 are equivalent to the first 2, since > the first 2 mean: > ge su'o broda na ku brode gi lo'i broda cu pa mei > and the second two mean: > na ku ge ro broda cu brode gi lo'i broda cu pa mei I agree and so now we reach the problem that bothered me for a while: 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). I would say yes and this invalidates my previous claims on the implication of the broda referent existence when using {na}. And so {tu'o}, because of its lesser sensitivity to the problems negations involve, seems indeed useful to me now: thank you for your patient explanations. and: >This is because >Lojban makes little if any use of presupposition/conventional >implicature (outside of UI, at least), pc: >I thnk that there are a variety of facts that suggest that internal >quantification is presuppositional Sorry, I may have a problem with my english there: I am not sure of what you mean with 'presupposition implicature'. mu'omi'e lioNEL