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

[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.

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

>>>> 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.

[...]

(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

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.

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.