In a message dated 3/15/2002 2:54:32 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:I basically agree, but one could add a fifth form, The third is just that of standard logic, as used even in the book you cited, so not exactly arbitrary. I would, in fact, take {Q da poi broda zo'u} as a case of {Q da poi broda}. You could go the other way, but it makes thes entences a lot longer (and whether self-identity is enough for logical existence is problematic -- see Quine and various responses) <My system simply does not have this presupposition. In many cases the set of broda has to be non-empty by conversational implicature, but that's all. The reason for this is that it simplifies things enormously, and nothing is lost as far as I can tell.> You mean A-E-I+ O+? For {lo broda}, we don't in fact have a presupposition, since none emptiness is part of the structure. This transfers to {da poi} by identities. As the present system stands, except for one extra step in translation into ultimate forms, the moves are a simple as can be. But the outward effect (if you leave the {ni'u} off) is the same. <I suspect these rules work for Q=ro and Q=su'o, but not for Q=no and Q=me'iro. Example: no da poi broda cu brode -> no da zo'u ge broda gi brode And that would be it according to the rules. But you would need to prefix {ge da broda gi} to give it existential import. Maybe by "ultimate form" you mean ro/su'o forms, right? In that case, you would go to: -> ro da zo'u ganai da broda ginai da brode and then yes, the rules tell you to add {ganai da broda gi}. So perhaps it should be made explicit that "ultimate forms" must be in terms of the positive quantifiers.> Thank you, I missed that point. Yes, standard logic has only positive quantifiers, so it is assumed that all negations have been moved to smallest scope. <. For unmarked Qs in the {Q (da poi) broda} format, all of the usual >negation moves hold: ro = no... naku = naku mei'ro = naku su'o ... su'o >and >so on for all the regular quantifiers of the Aristotelian set (A = ro, E = >no, I = su'o, O = me'iro). With negative quantifiers {Q ni'u} the >quantifier >inside a negation will be non-negative and, conversely an unmarked >quantifier >in side a negation will result in a negative quantifer. These latter >factors >are only relevant when and where negative quantifirs are used. This is true in my system as well. In my system, the complicated rules can be recovered by marking the universals as {roma'u} and {noma'u}.> I don't see how making quantifiers longer helps any here, though the statement of the rules could be simplified a bit. The "moving a negation across changes quantity, quality and import" seems too short, however. |