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

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2011/6/5 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.
>

  That's true.  You cannot.  I retract.  I made an incorrect leap from
the fact that ro da broda implies su'o da broda in any non-empty
universe.  You are of course correct that that's not true in a
non-empty universe. Of course the point that we still disagree upon
with the "lo no..." case is your (and everyone else besides me ;-) )
assertion that "lo" perforce means "su'o"


>>> 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".

  Please explain further.  I'm not sure I understand how "lo no broda"
is "complete" and "ro lo no broda" is "incomplete"?

>
>>> 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"?

  I think maybe you misunderstood.  My response is saying that I agree
my formulation is "...somthing like 'ro da poi...", which doesn't have
any referents.

  That being said, I think that maybe I could in fact believe that
"zo'e gerku je mlatu" is a meaningful utterance (although none I would
ever say) where zo'e's "obvious from context" value is "no da".  But I
was willing to concede your POV that zo'e cannot be a nomei, since you
were wiling to give me an altenate formulation of my belief.

                    --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.