On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:29 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10 May 2011 15:48, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> O= n Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:40 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> no lo gerku cu xekri
>>
>> Not= :
>>
>> lo no gerku cu xekri
>>
>>
&= gt;> mu'o
>>
>
> =A0 But those are two differen= t assertions.
>=A0 In the first, we don't know how
> many dogs are in the un= iverse of discourse, but we know no matter how many
> there are, none= of them are black.=A0 The second says there are in fact zero
> dogs = (lo gerku cu nomei),=A0 and it's the second part that really doesn'= t add
> any information, since any assertion about a nomei (other than an asse= rtion
> about its cardinality, I guess) is per force true, and theref= ore adds no
> further information.=A0 That's right, I am saying t= hat "lo no gerku cu broda",
> for any value of broda, asserts one thing, and one thing only, that &q= uot;lo
> gerku cu nomei".=A0 Therefore it's neither contradi= ctory, nor meaningless, nor
> nonsense.=A0 It does make an assertion,= it does impart information (that we
> have no dogs), it just imparts it in an efficient way, and does not im= part
> any other information that it might on the surface appear to.<= br>
It does make an assertion and impart information, yes, and tha= t
assertion and information are incompatible in the way you formed the
exp= ression, "lo no gerku cu xekri". What is your assertion about? &q= uot;lo
gerku". You want to ascribe the property "none of which= are black".

=A0

NO!!!!=A0 I do NOT want to make that assertion!=A0 Please stop putting= words in my mouth!=A0 I was very explicit which assertion I was making.=A0= That there are NO dogs!=A0 PERIOD!=A0 I explicitly stated that it does NOT= "impart any other information that it might on the surface appear to&= quot;=A0 The only assertion I WANT to make is that there are no dogs.=A0 Ev= erything=A0else is a red herring.

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa

=A0

And making reference to "lo= gerku" is what allows any quantification
*over* it to be meaningfu= l at all. In Lojban, we do that with the
outer quantifier:

ci lo gerku -- ci da poi gerku -- three of that wh= ich IS-DOG
no lo gerku -- no da poi gerku -- none of that which IS-DOG
The inner quantifier, on the other hand, specifies the cardinality of=
the referrent itself:

lo ci gerku -- da poi gerku je cimei -- that w= hich IS-DOG and ARE-THREE
lo no gerku -- da poi gerku je nomei -- that w= hich IS-DOG and IS-NONE

In the latter, "no" conflicts with= "lo". How exactly could we say that
there is something which is at least a dog AND whose cardinality is
zero= ? This is different from saying that there is none *of* something
which = is at least a dog -- expressed in Lojban by means of the outer
quantifie= r, the real logical quantification.

mu'o

--
You received this message b= ecause you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners"= group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://gr= oups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.