Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > JCB had at least one course in Logic but in a school that did not favor
>> > modal
>> > logic at all.  I don't know how well he did in even that one (Lojbab
>> > does not
>> > improve the logic input much).  But in 56 years, the efforts to get
>> > necessity
>> > operators in have come to naught -- though eventually we got something
>> > like a
>> > necessity predicate,
>> >
>> Is there a brivla for logical or modal necessity?
>
>
>   Does nibli meet your requirements?
>               --gejyspa
>
Thanks, but unfortunately I am pretty that this could not be made to
work, at least not with anything close to reasonable succinctness,
unless you know a way.  What we are trying to express is the
sentence-scope adverb "necessarily(S)" which means "in all possible
states of affairs, S" or more longwindedly "there is no possible state
of affairs such that it is not true that S".  For example:

(1) {lo remna ne'e mabru}
 = Humans are necessarily mammals.
 = In all possible states of affairs, humans are mammals.

(2) {ro nanmu je se mensi ne'e bruna}
 = All men with sisters are necessarily brothers.
 = There is no possible state of affairs such that it is not true that
all men with sisters are brothers.

-- 
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.