<<
I did not accept that it was correct for Lojban. Only that it would
not be logically inconsistent. But I consider it a bad choice,
because it is more complicated, and thus incorrect for Lojban in
that sense.
>>
All of the supposed complications are exactly paralleled for your system, and more likely to need to be used there, since the non-importing {ro} is less common in actual usage than the importing. Also, since Lojban is following formal logic, it is more or less forced to the importing form that that logic uses (the apparent exception being an aberration that ran briefly form about 1858 to 1958).
<<
>Do you really, by the way, want {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} to
>be
>true even if there is nothing in the world at all?
Yes, vacuously true. I can't imagine a context where it
would come up, though.
>>
Oops! See how hard it is to even think of non-importing affirmative universals. I meant to say {ro da broda} but immediately fell into the formula needed in normal discourse to make "non-importing" claims.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.