From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Feb 11 16:39:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 00:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 7699 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 00:39:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 00:39:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.147) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 00:39:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:39:39 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.51 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:38 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:39:38 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2002 00:39:39.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0CE71D0:01C1B35D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.51] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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.