[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan

mukti, On 09/11/2014 18:34:

On Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:42:50 AM UTC-3, And Rosta wrote:

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

    4. In any bpfk revision of the CLL specification, 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
detour into other questions.


I felt that in response to you asking Question #1, John was answering Question #3. But considering the rivers of sweat that went into answering the question a dozen years ago, I think anyone unwilling to consider it a settled question should reread the old discussion and engage with the reasoning therein. (I can't remember it.)


CLL 16.8 says:

    sumti of the type “ro da poi klama” requires that there are things which “klama”


I would have thought that under that view, "no da poi klama" likewise requires that there are things which "klama". That is, it's the "da poi" rather than the "ro" that has EI. Hence, for instance, {lo'i (ro) broda} doesn't entail {lo'i su'o broda} and doesn't exclude {lo'i no broda}. Whether EI "da poi" is consistent with CLL and logic, I no longer have the powers to opine on. IIRC, xorxes thinks "lo broda" is inconsistent with "lo no broda", so if "ro/no da poi broda" = "ro/no (lo) broda" then xorxes must think "da poi" has EI.


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


If I may dare to presume to venture to second-guess xorxes, I think he might view the EI as presupposed, in which case {ro da poi klama cu pavyseljirna} would have a truth value only when {su'o da klama} is true. And in that case -- i.e. in the case of that view being deemed correct -- you would be barking up the wrong tree.

[...]

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} == {naku su'o da naku} on the
"Inexact Numbers" page.


I think your assumption/conclusion is correct. But it may additionally be the case that restricted da presupposes EI.

--And.

--
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.