<<
I don't remember it being settled and decided (by whom?) the way
you want. For me {ro} is non-importing.
>>
Actually, on 15-03-02 you set forth (again) your system, acknowledging that it was aberrant, and claiming for it a simplicity that it turned out not to have when actually applied or worked out theoretically. That aside you acknowledged the correctness -- within Lojban of the importing system. Your {ro} is just {ro ni'u}, which is rarely useful and on those occasions is easily reached by falling back to standard Logic notation (your claim that ordinary {ro} can be reached in the same way from {ro ni'u} is true, but hardly an efficient suggestion. Of course, we still disagree about whether "every" -- you probably say "all" -- really has existential import.)
<<
So for you {ga broda ginai broda} can be false for selected broda?
For me it's a tautology.
>>
I'm not sure that I understand this, but I suppose you mean {lo brode ga broda ginai brode} can be false. Yes, it can, if there are no brode. But, note, {naku le brode ga broda ginai brode} is false as well, so tautological status is not affected -- the sentence is merely ill-formed at a low level.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.