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

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2011/5/31 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/5/30 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:48 PM, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, in the restricted case,
>>>> (assuming there are no cat-dogs in the universe) what does {ro da poi ke'a
>>>> gerku je mlatu cu broda} mean?
>>>
>>> It means:
>>>
>>>   ro da zo'u ganai da gerku je mlatu gi da broda
>>>
>>> it means that whether there are cat-dogs or not.
>>>
>>>> Is it false, true, meaningless?
>>>
>>> If there are no cat-dogs, it's true, since for every value of da it
>>> will be false that da gerku je mlatu.
>>
>>   Which is precisely why I say that every "lo no broda cu brode"
>> construction is also true.  But no one seems to believe me :,-(
>
> "Precisely why"?
>
> You are using a referring expression that doesn't refer. That's
> something that requires at least some explanation of some arbitratry
> conventions.
>
> The truth of "ro da zo'u ga naku da broda gi da brode" when "da broda"
> is false for every value of the variable "da" does not require any
> special convention.

  Except that you have to specify (or know by some external means)
that there are no true values of da that are broda  in order to make
"ro da poi broda" = "no da poi broda". "lo no broda" precisely makes
that specification.  It doesn't require any arbitrary conventions.  It
works like all other lo PA broda.

            --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.