In a message dated 3/9/2002 12:49:42 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:This does have regularity, but it makes transformations Sure, because the denial of an importing quantifier is a free one (but you don't need the {su'o} in the second). This is a regular feature of all the DeMorgan's in this system -- with the convenience that you can tell at a glance whether an _expression_ is importing or not ({lo broda} v. {da poi}) <The Book has {ro da poi broda cu brode} for A+ (pg 399), which goes against both our systems> I have complained about that passage -- and a couple of others of the same sort -- since before the book came out. With my usual success, of course (obviously). It's bad logic and worse Lojban. Unless, of course, it were taken to mean that {da poi} was also +, which it clearly is not in other places and certainly in common practice. <it allows all the transformations that my system allows (section starting on page 405).> Does mine miss any (in content, form is screwed up a bit here)? <It also says explicitly that {su'o da poi verba naku klama su'o de poi ckule} is identical in meaning to {su'o verba naku klama su'o ckule}, which is what my system allows, but not yours.> Yes, I have had to fiddle a bit with the meaning of {da poi} -- a meaning that was not very clearly worked out anyhow, as witness your example on 399 in contrast with several other cases. I admit that, when I started this, I had hopes of keeping {da poi} on the + side and making all the - go over to {ganai gi}, but a bit of water-testing assured me this would never fly -- in spite of 399 and the other places. I would be more than happy to go to that system if I thought I could get away with it among the users. The present one is a compromise keeping as much as makes good use of the usual material without doing too much damage to bad habits people (including Central) have picked up. |