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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.

I don't think so.

> 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,

"So"? How do you move from "every" to "some" in an empty universe?
Which thing? In an empty universe there are no values for a variable
to take! That's what an empty universe is, a universe with no values
for the variables. There are no things, how can be there one that is a
nomei?

> and in fact, every thing is a nomei.
>  How can you say one thing, and then flat out contradict it?

Where did I say that something is a nomei?

You seem to be confusing variables with values. Just because you can
fill the x1 of nomei with some words and get a true sentence does not
mean that something is a nomei. From "everything is a nomei" you want
to infer that therefore "something is a nomei". But that's precisely
what you cannot do in an empty universe. You cannot infer "su'o da
broda" from "ro da broda" in that case.

>> 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?

Do you think not all the referents of broda need be broda? In any
case, that's the open question from the other thread, do we need each
referent of "lo broda" to be a broda, or could they just be broda
together, not necessarily individually? For me it's an open question,
so feel free to remove the "ro" if you wish.

> (I would agree that to
> be the correct expansion of "ro lo no broda" in your understanding)

Not at all. "ro lo no broda" is an incomplete expression, it needs a
bridi for the quantifier to quantify. It cannot be reduced to a
"zo'e".

>> 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.

Then you must think "zo'e" can have no values. How else do you get "lo
no broda" to be equivalent to "zo'e"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.