From pycyn@aol.com Tue Feb 12 07:00:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 15:00:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 64445 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 15:00:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 15:00:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 15:00:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.12.1a3d8775 (3949) for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:00:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12.1a3d8775.299a880d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:00:29 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12.1a3d8775.299a880d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_12.1a3d8775.299a880d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:56:11 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Okay. Irrespective of how you intepret {finpe je mirli}: > It is true exactly of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer, the intersection of the two sets (null in this world and, I suspect, most others). The herd of fish and deer together, the union of the two sets, is {finpe je mirli} true of things that are one or the other (or both-- sure, sure!). <1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?> Factually? No. I'd say {no da finpe je mirli} To be sure, if anythiing were in this set, it would be a fish and a deer. <2a. If so, since .e is rather well defined, would you then accept that {lo finpe cu finpe je mirli}?> Yes, IF. This is NOT the white horse problem. But, in fact no. <2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?> Some member(s) of the set of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer. But there aren't any, so it is a falsifying expression (makes atomic sentences in which it occurs false, or drives the conversation into another --very strange -- world. --part1_12.1a3d8775.299a880d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:56:11 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


Okay. Irrespective of how you intepret {finpe je mirli}:

It is true exactly of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer, the intersection of the two sets (null in this world and, I suspect, most others).  The herd of fish and deer together, the union of the two sets, is {finpe je mirli} true of things that are one or the other (or both-- sure, sure!).

<1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?>

Factually?  No.  I'd say {no da finpe je mirli}  To be sure, if anythiing were in this set, it would be a fish and a deer.

<2a. If so, since .e is rather well defined, would you then accept that
{lo finpe cu finpe je mirli}?>

Yes, IF.  This is NOT the white horse problem.  But, in fact no.

<2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?>
Some member(s) of the set of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer.  But there aren't any, so it is a falsifying expression (makes atomic sentences in which it occurs false, or drives the conversation into another --very strange -- world.

 --part1_12.1a3d8775.299a880d_boundary--