* Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 14:03 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 13:00 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> 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.
>
> So a metadeduction allows reasonable shifts in the domain of
> discourse, right? (We need "reasonable" for otherwise any
> non-contradiction could probably be metadeduced from anything.)
Something like that, yes.
> > 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,
>
> I would say a reasonable metadeduction is "some kind" rather than
> "some kinds", namely the resident-ruling kind of non-resident. I can't
> think of any other reasonable kind of non-resident rulers from that
> context.
How about rulers from various other countries?
> >which I believe is a meaning you would ascribe to
> > {su'o na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju}.
>
> I would or I could? It is not the meaning I would ascribe to it out of
> the blue. My first choice would be to use the same individuation
> criteria for both "xabju" and "na'e xabju", since they are almost the
> same predicate.
OK. Presumably if I kept modifying {xabju} and {na'e xabju}, we'd
eventually find a sentence where you consider the two readings to be
approximately equally plausible.
I know I've asked such questions before, but please allow me to do it
again: how would you make it clear that you meant to use the same
individuation criteria here? Or in the beret example, how would you
express the surprising claim that all french people really do all wear
the same individual mundane non-kind hat?
> > 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?
>
> Not for me, no. This seems to be more about psychology than about
> logic. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to jump from one domain to
> another like that without any indication that you are doing so. I
> would have no problem with ".i ju'o su'o klesi be lo na'e xabju cu
> turni ro xabju". And then, once that class of non residents is in the
> picture, I wouldn't object to you saying something about "lo na'e
> xabju poi turni ro xabju".
OK, so we'd just have to insert that third sentence?
{ro xabju cu se turni su'o na'e xabju .i .ua su'o klesi be lo na'e xabju
cu turni ro xabju .i .ua su'o na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju}?
> But we are not talking about any logical deductions here.
No, just lojbanic deductions. It distresses me that these concepts
should be so different!
Martin
Attachment:
pgpVXwPfyE_PF.pgp
Description: PGP signature