On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Michael Tur= niansky <mtur= niansky@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 12= , 2011 at 5:57 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11 May 2011 18:24, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
&= gt;> It does make an assertion and impart information, yes, and that
>> assertion and information are incompatible in the way you formed t= he
>> expression, "lo no gerku cu xekri". What is your asserti= on about? "lo
>> gerku". You want to ascribe the propert= y "none of which are black".
>
>
> 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!
> =A0I explicitly stated that = it does NOT "impart any other
> information that it might on the= surface appear to"

You had clearly intended to ascribe the property "none of wh= ich are
black" to the dogs:

On 10 May 2011 15:48, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>

> we know no matter how many there are, none of them are black.
=
And you had explicitly stated that you can "truthfully say &= quot;lo no
gerku cu xekri"":

On 9 May 2011 20:44, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:> =A0 I don't believe "lo no gerku cu blabi" to be self = contradictory/nonsense.
> =A0 Consider a room containing three white dogs -- lo ci gerku cu blab= i
> =A0 I take one away -- lo re gerku cu blabi
> =A0 I take an= other away -- lo pa gerku cu blabi
> =A0 I take the last one away -- = lo no gerku cu blabi

> =A0 Of course, when I take the last one away, I can equally trut= hfully say "lo
> no gerku cu xekri".

You can truthfu= lly say "none of them are black", but probably not in this way:

=A0

=A0=A0 I don't know how many times or differents ways = I can say this.=A0 I am not trying to say that "none of them are black= ".=A0 If I wanted to say that I would say "no lo PA gerku cu xekr= i"=A0(where=A0PA is any number, including "no")=A0 The point= is that when I start a sentence "lo no gerku cu ", I can end it = with any selbri I want, and it will be true, because you can say anthing yo= u want about the members of set that has no members in it, and that the onl= y thing the sentence is truly asserting is that you have no members.=A0 Jus= t like "lo pa gerku cu xekri" does not mean "one of the dogs= is black", but rather "the one dog is black", "lo no g= erku cu xekri" means that "the zero dogs are black".

=A0

lo no gerku ... =3D [ da poi gerku je= nomei ] or more precisely [ da poi
gerku poi nomei ] ...

Reason = 1: You aren't making reference to the white non-black dogs by
which the truth of "none of them are black" can be inferred.
<= /blockquote>
=A0

=A0 That's true, because they are black, and white, and purp= le.=A0 They are also equally non-black, non-white and non-purple.=A0 Becaus= e they don't exist.

=A0

Reason 2: You can't sensibly mean= to refer to something which is-dog
which is-none.

=A0

=A0 But why not?

=A0

But you can sensibly pick none of= something which is-dog:

no lo gerku =3D no [ da poi gerku ]

> The only assertion I WANT to make is that there are no do= gs.

Then:

no da gerku
no (lo) gerku cu zvati / zasti=
...

"lo no gerku cu blabi" from your own comment not o= nly is unnecessary
for your own aim stated above (since it imparts more information than
&q= uot;there are no dogs"), but also seems unsound.

=A0

=A0 As I said, an INEFFICIENT method of asserting there are no d= ogs.

=A0=A0But it's not unsound.=A0Will you grant me that "ro lo= =A0gerku cu blabi"=A0makes sense for any amount of white dogs that=A0w= e are discussing?=A0 Why should that be any less sensical if the amount of = dogs in the room is zero?=A0 (Just like I can say to my kids "I'll= give you all the dollars in my pocket" even if that number is zero?) = Therefore, just like we can say "ro lo ci gerku cu blabi" we can = say "ro lo no gerku cu blabi".=A0 And if we can say that, we can = say "lo no gerku cu blabi"=A0

=A0

=A0

Or do you want to assert also that &q= uot;the white dogs aren't in the
room", as more proper to the a= ctual context of your example of "a room
and three white dogs"?

=A0

=A0

=A0 I am not making any claim that there are white dogs anywhere= in the universe, anymore than saying "I will give you all the fire-br= eathing unicorn-elves in my pocket" makes a claim about the existence = of fire-breathing unicorn-elves anywhere in the universe.=A0 "lo no ge= rku cu blabi" makes two claims -- 1) the dogs in my universe of discus= sion are white, and 2) there are no dogs in my universe of discussion. (and= hence, whatever claim I am making about them in 1) is pointless).

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

=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.