On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:I would disagree with the "logically entails" part, yes. There is no
> Wording it in terms of
> "logical sense" was probably not the best way to do it, and yet in my mind
> that's really what's going on: any "wanting of a thing" logically entails
> "wanting something to do with a thing" to me. Do you disagree?
logical inference rule that takes you form "mi djica ko'a" to "mi
djica lo nu ko'a co'e". I wouldn't have much problem with
"semantically entails".
Similarly, "mi viska ko'a" semantically entails "mi viska lo nu ko'a
co'e". You can't want something without at the same time wanting
something about it, and you can't see something without at the same
time seeing something about it. But this is semantics, not logic.
You can say "lo dacti", "lo fasnu", etc. Personally, I see a more
> By the way, it would be nice if there were a better way to make generic
> examples of these kinds of things. What we have is already probably better
> than English, but it would be nice if there was a pro-sumti that you could
> use to refer to a generic non-abstract sumti or a generic abstract sumti
> unambiguously and without having to define everything initially every time.
> (Other generic things would also be nice, this is just the example that pops
> up in this context.)
significant difference between lo fatci and lo fasnu than between lo
fasnu and lo dacti.
lo fatci, lo namcu, lo se ckaji are true abstractions, lo fasnu is
only an abstraction in the sense that lojban decided to call selma'o
NU "abstractors", but other than that there is nothing too abstract
about lo fasnu.
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.