From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 25 12:52:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 19:50:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 96683 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 19:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 19:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 19:35:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.11a.492743e (4587) for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:35:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11a.492743e.28e2368b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:35:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11a.492743e.28e2368b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_11a.492743e.28e2368b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2001 4:43:30 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes: xorxes: > > NOT OK maybe not false but nonsensical: it yields things like > {la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la dubias} and {la barbras fa'u la xilris > mamta la tclsis}, where the {fa'u} in one case is superfluous and in the > other gets the wrong person, so I suppose the required XOR comes out right. > A less likely way of reading it, which works a litle better would allow > that the {fa'u} somehow got outside the bridi it is in to the superordinate > one, then you would get the right mothers in each case, but then they would > not differ in this property at all but rather would agree (though every > thing else would be wrong for one reason or another). > > la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u > OK > > la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris > NOT OK > Who holds this one? Certainly not me, since I insist that te frica has to > be abstract. > > la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u > OK I take the presence of a {ce'u} to be enough to create an abstraction. > > > By me: > la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u > OK > > la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u > OK > > la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris > NOT OK > > la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u > NOT OK > I'm not sure how I managed to do it, but the items quoted as xorxes' are mine and the ones after the quote, headed "By me" are in fact xorxes'. I hope this did not cause total confusion. --part1_11a.492743e.28e2368b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/22/2001 4:43:30 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes:

xorxes:

<la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u

NOT OK maybe not false but nonsensical: it yields things like
{la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la dubias} and {la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la tclsis}, where the {fa'u} in one case is superfluous and in the other gets the wrong person, so I suppose the required XOR comes out right. A less likely way of reading it, which works a litle better would allow that the {fa'u} somehow got outside the bridi it is in to the superordinate one, then you would get the right mothers in each case, but then they would not differ in this property at all but rather would agree (though every thing else would be wrong for one reason or another).

la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
OK

la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
NOT OK
Who holds this one? Certainly not me, since I insist that te frica has to be abstract.

la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
OK I take the presence of a {ce'u} to be enough to create an abstraction. >

By me:
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
OK

la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
OK

la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
NOT OK

la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
NOT OK

I'm not sure how I managed to do it, but the items quoted as xorxes' are mine and the ones after the quote, headed "By me" are in fact xorxes'. I hope this did not cause total confusion.
--part1_11a.492743e.28e2368b_boundary--