Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

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

la djorden cusku di'e

> With a *nonimporting* ro,
> 	naku ro pavyseljirna != su'o pavyseljirna naku
> 	(and the book says this is equal).

You have this backwards. The equality holds for nonimporting ro,
it does not hold for importing ro.

> So with a nonimporting "ro da" we'd keep "naku ro da ..." as
> importing?

Of course. Negation reverses importingness.

> This is a lot less elegant than the way AndR suggests,

This is not a choice, unless you want to make importingness
a presupposition (i.e. untouched by negation). Then neither
{naku ro broda cu brode} nor {ro broda cu brode} would be
true when there are no broda.

> > It can be made consistent, but then we would have to drop the ability to
> > move negation across quantifiers while switching the quantifier, which
> > is also inconsistent with the book.
>
> You have yet to show any inconsistency.  Just repeating that one
> is there doesn't do much.

But he is right. Either {ro} is nonimporting, or you can't
move a negation across switching to {su'o}. You can't have your
cake and eat it too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus