Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

I need to correct an earlier paragraph.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:32 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> It dawns on me in passing that in the case of {lo remna cu mabru} what
> appears to be universal quantification over x1 is probably built into
> the meaning {mabru} in a similar way that a kind-abstractor over x2
> seems to be built into the meaning of {finti}.  So maybe {X mabru}
> entails {ro X mabru} automatically by predicate definition, and maybe
> these "curiosities" are fewer than they appear.
>

This is totally wrong under both xorlo and CLL.  Starting with:

(1a) {lo lurdzu cu remna}, which seems uncontroversial insofar as all
moon walkers have been human.  We've already established:

(1a) {lo remna cu lurdzu}, despite the fact that only a small part on
humanity has walked on the moon.  Just as uncontroversial as (1a) is:

(2a) {lo mabru cu danlu}.  If (1a):(1b)::(2a):(2b), then:

(2b) {lo danlu cu mabru}, however curious*, must also be acceptable at
least under some interpretations.  Since:

(2b')  {ro lo danlu cu mabru} is always untrue, it follows that the x1
of {mabla} cannot have implicit universal quantification under xorlo
logic without contradiction with (2b).

*I say this is curious because if xorlo {lo danlu} is glorked
(contextually, say) as danlu-kind, then this is false (as it
intuitively should be), whereas {lo mabru cu danlu} is probably always
true under any domain.

-- 
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.