Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The commonest case where covert donkey sentences occur is with conditionals:
> "If you give me money, I'll spend it on drugs" = "Every possible
> circumstance in which there is money that you give me is a circumstance in
> which there is money that you give me and I spend on drugs". I don't think
> your solution works for that. Applying your solution gives (I think) "Every
> circumstance is such that in it I spend all money that you give me", which
> has the wrong meaning. Crucially, the conditionals rely on restricted
> quantification (over circumstances in which such and such is the case).

Why does it have the wrong meaning? Is it still wrong if you use "any"
instead of "all"? I think my solution would give: "For any money, if
you give it to me, I'll spend it on drugs" or "I'll spend on drugs any
money you give me".

> So well done with the reformulation of the classic donkey sentence, but now
> turn your ingenuity to "Every possible circumstance in which there is money
> that you give me is a circumstance in which there is money that you give me
> and I spend on drugs".

I think the issue with donkey sentences is not so much reformulating
them in terms of ordinary first order logic, which can be done by
replacing the short scope existential by a wide scope universal. The
problematic issue is explaining what's going on, since this conversion
is not licensed by any rules of logic.

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.