From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 07 13:12:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 7 Mar 2002 21:12:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 59517 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 21:07:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 21:07:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.189) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 21:07:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:07:31 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:07:31 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:07:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 21:07:31.0733 (UTC) FILETIME=[189BC450:01C1C61C] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >Does O+ entail I+ in your understanding? >It doesn't in mine. In other words, does "some don't" entail >"some do"?> > >No, nor does I+ entail O+, Then there is no problem with either {me'iro} or {da'asu'o} allowing {no}. They must allow it. >My worries about >whether the existential import makes it through Yes, {me'iro broda} = {da'asu'o broda} must have existential import. When ro = no, both {me'iro} and {da'asu'o} fail, making the statement false. >-- it is just a worry that >the {no} which strictly applies to SP might carry over to S as well. Not sure what you mean. >No, the negation of a quantifer is a quantifer with opposite import, which >this does not show in your examples But it does! {ro broda cu brode} is A- and {me'iro broda cu brode} is O+, and each is the negation of the other. Similarly {no broda cu brode} is E- and {su'o broda cu brode} is I+, each the negation of the other. What you cannot do, and I agree, is negate {ro lo su'o broda} to obtain {me'iro broda}, or negate {no lo su'o broda} to obtain {su'o broda}, but if you look carefully, I never wrote that. >(by the way, you have it "right" in your >original list -- on the assumption that {lo ro broda} is different from {lo >su'o broda} , which it is not in the relevant way.) No, with that original list it doesn't work. (And I labelled that assumption as weird and discarded it from the start.) >ro broda = no broda naku >no broda = ro broda naku >su'o broda = me'iro broda naku >me'iro broda = su'o broda naku> > >Same problem (no change of import) remains. There is no change of import here! A- and E- are complementary, as are I+ and O+. The negation occurs after the quantifier, so import is not affected. >The problem is that, if {ro} can be {no} then any claim at all can be made, >since anything follows from a falsehood. You're exasperating sometimes. It is not a falsehood the way I understand {ro}, of course. {ro broda} means {no broda} iff {lo'i broda} is the empty set. >Additionally, of course, this does >not solve the import question, if {no} can have existential import -- be >about S as well as SP. I don't follow that. {no broda cu brode} does not have existential import in my system, it is E-. {no lo su'o broda cu brode} does, it is E+. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.