In a message dated 3/7/2002 3:15:38 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:Yes, {me'iro broda} = {da'asu'o broda} must have existential What a relief! They'll never be false for that reason. <But it does! {ro broda cu brode} is A- and {me'iro broda cu brode} is O+, and each is the negation of the other. Similarly {no broda cu brode} is E- and {su'o broda cu brode} is I+, each the negation of the other. What you cannot do, and I agree, is negate {ro lo su'o broda} to obtain {me'iro broda}, or negate {no lo su'o broda} to obtain {su'o broda}, but if you look carefully, I never wrote that.> But this assumes that {lo su'o broda} is different from {lo ro broda}, which it ain't. To be consistent, you should probably not collapse {su'o lo su'o broda} since that breaks the pattern you are establishing (misleading). <You're exasperating sometimes. It is not a falsehood the way I understand {ro}, of course. {ro broda} means {no broda} iff {lo'i broda} is the empty set.> Speaking of exasperating! You persist in MISunderstanding {ro} though you have been corrected God knows how many times over just about all the years you have been in the Lojban game. If {lo'i broda} refers to the empty set, any basic sentence containing {lo broda} or some variant on it is false (or meaningless or however you want to deal with it) because one of its presuppositions (that {lo broda} refers to some things) is false. Remember the assumed quantifier on {lo} is {su'o} which cannot be larger than the size of the set being drawn from. <I don't follow that. {no broda cu brode} does not have existential import in my system, it is E-. {no lo su'o broda cu brode} does, it is E+.> As I keep saying, since the two are exactly the same, if one of them has import so does the other, or if one doesn't neither does the other. I suppose we could make the case that, since they use different words, they are different, but that seems to me too small a difference, since they refer to the same thing directly(and it would only work if used consistently). Quantifier + {da} overtly refers to a different thing (the universal "thing" set) and so is more usefully taken to be the non-importing form. Personally, even there, I would like that {da poi broda} were still importing and restrict the free forms to {ro da broda naja brode} and the like, but I know I can't get that to fly. |