Re: [lojban-beginners] Just to double check, about {da} and quantifiers

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2011/6/3 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/6/2 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> "ro da poi ..." translates into English as "each x such that ...", or
>>> if you wish, as "each of the members of the set ...". It is certainly
>>> not each of the members of the set.
>>
>>  I think either you or I must have skipped a groove here (to use old
>> vinyl metaphors).  How can you say in one breath both that it
>> translats as "each of the members of the set" and "it is certainly not
>> each of the members of the set"?   Which is it???
>
> Both.
>
> "ro sumti" translates as "every sumti".
> "ro sumti" is two words, it's also a single sumti, it is certainly not
> every sumti.
>
> See the difference?
>
> You may argue that you were not using the quote marks to quote, but
> were using them for something else (to indicate that the words were
> not in Engish maybe?) So what you wanted to say was "ro da poi gerku
> je mlatu cu nomei" and not "lu ro da poi gerku je mlatu li'u cu
> nomei", which is what you did say.  Your full sentence was:
>
>>In a universe where "ro da poi gerku je mlatu" is a
>> nomei, "no da poi gerku je mlatu" refers to the same thing (an empty
>> set).
>
> You were clearly talking about the expression "no da poi gerku je
> mlatu", so I assumed you were also talking about tthe expression "ro
> da poi gerku je mlatu". Mention, not use.
>
> If what you meant to say was thatin a universe where "ro da poi gerku
> je mlatu cu nomei" is true, "no da poi gerku je mlatu cu nomei" is
> also true, then I think we agreed about that many times already.
>


  YES!!!  That's EXACTLY what I was talking about.  It seems to me
that you are being deliberately obtuse if you were reading them as a
string.  If I wanted to say that a given string is a nomei. (which I
agree is pretty much silliness) then I could have used any string.
Why would I use "no da poi gerku je mlatu" in preference to "do cu
finpe ciksi ba lo fasnu censa" If I wanted to talk about an arbitrary
string? If I am talking about lojban, and what to use a string, I use
lu/li'u (or lo'u/le'u as the case warrants) .  I'm a purist when it
comes to lojban. I don't believe in any punctuation that isn't
definded (i.e. the . and , )

> Does that clear this bit up? You used quotes for something other than
> quoting and I read them as quoting.
>

  Again, I think you were only doing it (or claim to be) to set up a
straw man of an argument.


>>>>> First you would have to explain how anything at all can be a nomei. My
>>>>> understanding is that "ro da zo'u da su'o mei", "For every x, x is
>>>>> something".  No thing is a nomei.
>>>>
>>>>  Unless there are in fact, no things.
>>>
>>> No, even in that case, "ro da su'o mei" and "no da no mei" are still
>>> true. Every thing is a su'o mei and no thing is a no mei.
>>>
>>> (It is also the case, in that weird special case of an empty universe,
>>> that "ro da no mei" and "no da su'o mei". But that doesn't warrant
>>> your "unless".)
>>
>>  But that is PRECISELY my "unless".
>
> But surely that's not how "unless" works.
>
> If I say that no thing is a nomei, you can't say "unless there are, in
> fact, no things", because even in that very case, it is still true
> that no thing is a nomei. In the empty universe it is NOT the case
> that some thing is a nomei. Your "unless" just doesn't work.
>
> [...]

  Again, You seem to contradict yourself.  If "ro da no mei" is true
in an empty universe (and I agree it is)  then for any value of da: da
no mei  So some thing is a nomei, and in fact, every thing is a nomei.
 How can you say one thing, and then flat out contradict it?


>
> (I deleted a lot of stuff where I think you are confusing the
> sentences we are discussing with the metalanguage used to discuss
> those sentences. If you think I missed something important please feel
> free to bring it up again.)
>
>> However, it's another step removed from the original "lo no..."
>> question.
>
> For me: lo no broda = zo'e noi ge ro ke'a broda gi lu'o ke'a no mei

  I'm sorry, where did the "ro" creep in from? (I would agree that to
be the correct expansion of "ro lo no broda" in your understanding)

>
> For me one of the presuppositions of "lo no broda" (that it refers to
> something, because "zo'e" must have some value) contradicts another of
> its presuppositions (that it doesn't refer to anything, because "lu'o
> ke'a nomei" cannot be true for any value of the variable).
>
> For you "lo no broda" expands to something else, it is not "zo'e
> noi...", which must have referent(s), for you it's something like "ro
> da poi ...", which doesn't have referents.

 (And again, only if I said "ro lo no broda") would I agree with that.

  Other than the "ro" question, I agree with your framing of our
different understandings, and I further understand why you have a
problem with the construct.
                              --gejyspa

-- 
You received this message because 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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.