From pycyn@aol.com Sat Mar 02 14:33:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 2 Mar 2002 22:33:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 69069 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 22:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2002 22:33:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 22:33:23 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.103.11828cc8 (3950) for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:33:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <103.11828cc8.29b2ad31@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:33:21 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_103.11828cc8.29b2ad31_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_103.11828cc8.29b2ad31_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/2/2002 8:51:08 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > > > What I said is that every set has ro members, and this includes > > > the empty set if ro can be zero. > > > >Sorry I misremembered the exact way you put it; the problem with your > claim > >remains, however. > > What is the problem with my claim? You didn't say. > What you actually said was <"all of all" does not add information, on the contrary, it loses information, at least if you agree with me that "all" does not have existential import.> which I take as an unequivocal claim that {ro} does not entail {su'o} in at least some contexts. This goes against basic logic and original Lojban -- see the first paragraph of the root message of this thread. --part1_103.11828cc8.29b2ad31_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/2/2002 8:51:08 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


la pycyn cusku di'e

> > What I said is that every set has ro members, and this includes
> > the empty set if ro can be zero.
>
>Sorry I misremembered the exact way you put it; the problem with your claim
>remains, however.

What is the problem with my claim? You didn't say.


What you actually said was
<"all of all" does not add information, on the contrary, it loses
information, at least if you agree with me that "all" does not
have existential import.>
which I take as an unequivocal claim that {ro} does not entail {su'o} in at least some contexts.  This goes against basic logic and original Lojban -- see the first paragraph of the root message of this thread.

 --part1_103.11828cc8.29b2ad31_boundary--