Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:10 AM, selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifier-logic/

Nice. I agree with most of it, although I'm not too sure yet what I think about ro and su'o becoming ro'oi and su'oi.

Have you thought about "su'e"? Presumably it should pattern with "ru'o", not with "ro'oi", so the su'o/su'e symmetry would be broken if su'o becomes su'oi.

Would "no" become "no'oi" as well? 

We should also have explicit definitions for me'i, za'u, da'a, so'a, so'e, etc since they all admit more than one pluralification, but I'm guessing they would all follow the "ru'o" pattern as well.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.