* Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 13:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > So make that {su'o na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju} - by analogy with the
> > berets, you'd hae that meaning that one-or-more *kinds* of non-resident
> > rule all residents - being something we could have deduced from {ro
> > xabju cu se turni su'o na'e xabju}?
>
> I don't see how you could deduce that one ore more kinds of
> non-resident rule every resident from knowing that each resident is
> ruled by one or more kinds of non-residents.
>
> I don't see how you want to deduce EA from AE unless you have a
> singleton domain for E or a singleton domain for A (or both).
>
> It seems to me the only way you could do that is shift domains in
> mid-deduction, which is not a valid move.
Make that "metadeduce", if you insist.
If we know that every resident is ruled by a non-resident, which is what
we would understand by {ro xabju cu se turni su'o na'e xabju}, then we
could conclude that there are some kinds of non-resident which rule
every resident, which I believe is a meaning you would ascribe to
{su'o na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju}.
So {ro xabju cu se turni su'o na'e xabju .i .ua su'o na'e xabju cu turni
ro xabju} would be a reasonable thought process (with a domain switch
having occurred between the sentences).
No?
Martin
Attachment:
pgpfLQYZcDWIV.pgp
Description: PGP signature