took no clear= =20 position on this problem. I now see that there is indeed a commitment to=20 preserving the negation boundaries formula, although it is buried in the=20 formal definitions and obscured by bad formatting. The part I'm looking at= =20 is this: ro da =3D da'ano da =3D no da naku =3D naku su'o da naku If this definition holds, then {ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} has the same=20 truth value as {na ku su'o pavyseljirna na ku cu blabi}. If {ro} were held= =20 to import, then both sentences would be false. Wouldn't that commit us to= =20 hold the negation of the second sentence to be true? =20 {su'o pavyseljirna na ku cu blabi} =3D> "There is at least one unicorn, suc= h=20 that it is not white." If I have made a mistake in my reasoning, please point it out. Otherwise, I= =20 will assume that BPFK has settled questions #1 and #4 per the equivalence= =20 for {ro da} =3D=3D {naku su'o da naku} on the "Inexact Numbers" page. mi'e la mukti mu'o --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_2550_108090981.1415558063010 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:42:50 AM UTC-3, And Rosta wr= ote:

1. What does ro mean, and does it have EI? (A question settled a dozen year= s ago.)
2. Should there be a non-EI universal quantifier?
3. Should there be an EI universal quantifier? This is the question John se= ems to be addressing.

4. In any bpfk revision of the CLL specificati= on, which meaning should be paired with the phonological form /ro/?
I believe that #1 and #4 are the question I'm trying to ask -= - which hopefully have the same answer -- and I'm sorry if I invited the de= tour into other questions.

CLL 16.8 says:

sumti of the type =E2=80=9Cro da poi klama=E2=80=9D requires th= at there are things which =E2=80=9Cklama=E2=80=9D

It's not entirely explicit in the section what the consequence= s when the requirements of the sumti are not met. I have assumed that accor= ding to this requirement, {ro da poi klama cu pavyseljirna} is then conside= red to be false in the case of {no da klama}. (If it has another truth valu= e which is neither true nor false, then I'm barking up the wrong tree!)

However, if such sentences are considered to be false= , then the definition of {ro} is incompatible with the description of how n= egation boundaries work. Supposing, for old time's sake, a universe without= unicorns:

{su'o pavyseljirna na ku cu blabi} =3D> T= here is at least one unicorn, such that it is not white. =3D> FALSE.

Now we move the boundary, and "invert" t= he quantifier, while preserving the truth value of the statement:

{na ku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} =3D> It is not true that all= unicorns are white. =3D> FALSE.

B= ut then we negate that and get:

{ro pavyseljirna cu bla= bi} =3D> All unicorns are white. =3D> TRUE.

The {ro} derived from these transformation is not one that "im= pl[ies] the corresponding existential claims". Either that definition of {r= o} is invalid, or the derivation of {ro} from {su'o} by moving negation bou= ndaries is. It's not just faulty examples at stake. The rules don't work to= gether.

When I started this thread, I was un= der the impression that the BPFK section on "Inexact Numbers" too= k no clear position on this problem. I now see that there is indeed a commi= tment to preserving the negation boundaries formula, although it is buried = in the formal definitions and obscured by bad formatting. The part I'm look= ing at is this:

ro da =3D da'ano da = =3D no da naku =3D naku su'o da naku

If this definition holds, then {r= o pavyseljirna cu blabi} has the same truth value as {na ku su'o pavyseljirna na ku cu blabi}. If {ro} were = held to import, then both sentences would be false. Wouldn't that commit us= to hold the negation of the second sentence to be true?

{su'o pavyselji= rna na ku cu blabi} =3D> "There is at least one unicorn, such that it is= not white."

If I have made a = mistake in my reasoning, please point it out. Otherwise, I will assume that= BPFK has settled questions #1 and #4 per the equivalence for {ro da} =3D= =3D {naku su'o da naku} on the "Inexact Numbers" page.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2550_108090981.1415558063010--