Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <<
> You are using the set (A+E-I+O-)
> for the forms {Q broda cu brode}.
> >>
> Yes, the traditional set from Logic since Aristotle (with occasional
> aberrations).
>
> <<
> I prefer (A-E-I+O+) for those forms, which give the rules:
>     ro <=> no naku <=> naku su'o naku <=> naku me'i
> and, when there is a guarantee that the subject term is non-empty,
>     ro => su'o
>     no => me'i
> >>
> The most famous apparent aberration, but, as it turns out, not one at all,
> since it is not actually about {ro broda cu brode} and the like at all but
> about {ro da ...}, where {ro} is just A+  and {su'o} I+ and therefore (if
> they occcur) E and O are both -.  The quantifiers in your system do not 
> carry
> over to the variable cases (except, of course, that work as long as the
> universe is non-empty).

They certainly do carry over to the variable cases, even in
the empty universe case. {ro da broda} is tautologically true
in an empty universe in my system, just like {me'iro da broda}
is tautologically true in your system, but false in mine.

> The middle equivalence and the peripheral one hold
> for both systems, of course (they are just contadiction).  the first and
> third have a long history (obversion) but have always been (quite 
> reasonably)
> suspect.  Since I can get any of them I I really need it, I am for sticking
> wiht the classics and the simplest system for covering all cases.

I think (A-E-I+O+) is simpler, and I can get all cases as well,
of course.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail