In a message dated 3/7/2002 10:16:52 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:If {ro} can be {no}, then {ro lo ro broda} is not I agree, but {ro} can't be {no}. <>{me'iro} and {da'a su'o} are quite right, since both seem to allow {no}. They do allow it. Does O+ entail I+ in your understanding? It doesn't in mine. In other words, does "some don't" entail "some do"?> No, nor does I+ entail O+, each is compatible with the corresponding universal, A+ and E+, espectively (in fact, entailed by). My worries about whether the existential import makes it through -- it is just a worry that the {no} which strictly applies to SP might carry over to S as well. I'll have to watch usage to see if that happens. <"Contradictories": ><roda = naku me'iroda >noda = naku su'oda >su'oda = naku noda >me'iroda = naku roda> > >Not perfectly clear what is going on here, combining + quantifier >expressions >with variables (intended for - quantification), and the negations seem >indifferent to import. They would still be valid if {da} is changed to {broda}:> No, the negation of a quantifer is a quantifer with opposite import, which this does not show in your examples (by the way, you have it "right" in your original list -- on the assumption that {lo ro broda} is different from {lo su'o broda} , which it is not in the relevant way.) <the {da'a} notion is not classical. {da'a} can also be changed to a postposed {naku} to make it more classical: ro broda = no broda naku no broda = ro broda naku su'o broda = me'iro broda naku me'iro broda = su'o broda naku> Same problem (no change of import) remains. <I did put a warning saying that these hold only if {ro} can be {no}.> namely: <and some of the relationships fail if {ro} is taken to have existential import.)> The problem is that, if {ro} can be {no} then any claim at all can be made, since anything follows from a falsehood. Additionally, of course, this does not solve the import question, if {no} can have existential import -- be about S as well as SP. If you want to do empty-universe logic, the appropriate format is to replace every occurrence of {Q da} by {Qda poi zasti}. It would still be obnoxious to an empty-universe logician, but it would get all the theorems right. Outside of that weird case (and even in it in fact), {ro} entails {su'o}, A entails I, E entails O (with the same import). You sign on with logic, you get logic, not something else. |