Re: [lojban] "part of things" fallacy

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 2:19 PM, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "lo no" discussion got above my head rather quickly.
>
> Is a relatively simple summary possible?

There was the question of whether "lo no broda" refers to something or
to nothing (i.e. does not refer to anything, not "refers to some thing
called 'nothing'").

Assuming it doesn't refer to anything, the next question was whether
it can be used as a statement that there are no broda. Normally you
don't use a sumti to make a statement, but the use of a sumti carries
certain presuppositions with it. The use of "lo PA broda" carries with
it the presupposition that there are PA broda, and thus some people
would argue that it is legitimate to use "lo no broda" to covertly
transmit that presupposition, even though you are not using the sumti
in its natural role of pointing to the things about which you are
going to say something.

The "fractional quantifiers" was something of a tangent, I think it's
a completely different issue from the no-as-cardinality issue.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.