In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:25:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode Well, no, since I don't diostinguish between {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o broda} (which is why I can use {lo broda} for the importing quantifiers throughout. <Notice that in the set notation, the group that does not require the import condition is A-,E-,I+,O+. That condition is implicit already in the first part. Some people say that the same happens in English: A- All S are P E- No S is P I+ Some S are P O+ Not all S are P> The relative simplicity here is an artefact of the logical system used, which has these reading privileged. Did we use restricted quantification as basic, the + forms would be simple and - complex. Did we use Aristotle's own system, the affirmative + and the negative - would be simple. I suspect there are ways to do the same for any other combination you like. But the differences come down to notation, not any significant differences in logic. In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent coourse through that. But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce. |