On Saturday, October 18, 2014 at 11:58 AM, mukti wrote:
On Friday, October 17, 2014 10:14:21 PM UTC-3, John Cowan wrote:Lojban expresses each of these differently: the Aristotelian claim is "ro broda cu brode"
whereas the Fregean claim is "ro da poi broda cu brode".BPFK gadri formally defines "PA broda" as "PA da poi broda". Does the distinction you are making survive this definition, or are you describing the status quo ante BPFK?if we assume that "ro" has existential import: then "ro broda cu brode" requires that
there are brodas, whereas "ro da poi broda cu brode" requires only that
there are das. The latter is true except in a completely empty universe,If I understand, you describe an interpretation of {ro da poi broda cu brode} such that the "existential import" of {ro} applies only to {da} rather than to {da poi broda} -- i.e. it "requires only that there are das".Presumably, even if the "importingness" of {ro} is limited to {da}, {ro} can still be said to quantify {da poi broda}: Otherwise, assuming that other PA work similiarly, {ci da poi gerku} would claim precisely three "das" in the universe, indicating among them an unspecified number of those which {gerku}.
Is the idea that, in limiting the importingness of {ro} to {da} while quantifying the entire term, that if in fact there are no "das" which {broda}, the statement may be vacuously true? And although you ruled out this scenario {ro broda}, for example, what about {ro lo broda}?Suppose {lo broda} describes an irreducible plural. In that case, is {ro lo broda cu brode} false per classical logical logic or true per modern logic? Would the answer be different for {ro lo no broda}, or for {ro lo broda} in a universe without brodas, providing that either of these are possible?
Finally, if {ro broda} and {ro da poi broda} toggles between aristotelian universal affirmatives and modern ones, isn't {ro broda} (as well as any other construction that preserves import) still inconsistent in regard to negation boundaries?
--> Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing that,
> would anyone care to take this up and once and for all settle the matter?
In answer to both questions: probably not.I hope that doesn't prove true. As pc said in an old jboske thread, "the question of existential import seems [too] central to go unsolved." Thank you for weighing in.mi'e la mukti mu'o
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 email 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.