RE: [jboske] "mu." (was: Why ro is importing & nobody should mind)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:31:20PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Jordan DeLong asked:
> > > what is the truth value of {ro pavyseljirna cu broda}...?
> > If our discussion universe contains unicorns, the statement has meaning 
> > 
> > If the listener is uncertain whether the discussion universe contains
> > unicorns, it's a clue that the speaker thinks they do 
> 
> I think this is what Nick was suggesting about implicature, but
> right now we're discussing a hypothetical universe (or even a real
> one like our own) where there are no unicorns. We should still
> have a truth value for both {ro da zo'u da ganai pavyseljirna gi
> blabi} and {ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} 
> 
> > If it's understood that the discussion universe does NOT contain unicorns,
> > this is a meaningless statement 
> 
> Why give up and call it meaningless when we can use our formal rules
> to make it mean something:
> 
> ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
> naku naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
> naku su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi
> 
> All we're saying is that there aren't any unicorns which aren't
> white. Which is *certainly* meaningful 

As long as {quantifier pavyseljirna cu blabi} has the same truth
value regardless of the quantifier (in worlds with no unicorns), 
I don't see why xod/me/John shouldn't let you decide whether that 
value is True or False.

--And.