Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:38

la pycyn cusku di'e

>The are now almost syntactically parallel, but the relation between {ju} 
>and
>{je da'auku} is not encoded as is the relation between {jenai} and {je 
>naku}.
> {ju} is not related to {je} in any regular way. Notice, you might just 
>as
>well have related {ju} to {janai da'auku} or {da'auku naja} or {jo 
>da'auku}.

Yes, of course. All of those are also equivalent.

> These all have the same truth values, but are otherwise only incidentally
>related to one another.

But are the connectives about anything else other than truth
values? What is this additional relationship that exists between
{je naku} and {jenai} but is absent in other combinations that
provide the same truth table? Is the equivalence between
{najo} and {jonai} of the interesting type, or just the same
truth value type?

>It seems to me that there is a difference between changing the referent of 
>a
>word and changing the whole proposition involved, even though changing a 
>word
>does change the proposition involved. In one case, you have a differnt 
>thing
>satisfying the sense of what is said, in the other you have a different 
>sense
>altogether.

Yes, I agree that there are differences, although I'm not too
clear on what exactly they are or what follows from them.

>It is when you say things like the above that I feel justified
>in thinking that you still are drawn to the notion that the answer to a
>question is just what fills the gap, rather than the whole sentence that
>answers it.

I was never drawn to that notion, so I will protest the "still".

>Put another way, {ta} is not {le ladru}, though it may happen to refer to 
>le
>ladru, to a particular bit of milk. But {ta se jdima makau} really is {ta 
>se
>jdima - 50 cents} or whatever the case may be -- even if you don't know 
>what
>proposition you are committing to, but you do know it is true.

I don't understand why {ta} is not {le ladru}. Isn't
{ta du le ladru} true? Of course the word "ta" is not the milk
it refers to, but then neither are the words "ta se jdima makau"
the proposition they refer to.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.