From pycyn@aol.com Thu Mar 07 16:52:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 8 Mar 2002 00:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 99683 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2002 21:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Mar 2002 21:53:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 21:53:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.89.14945244 (4588) for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:53:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <89.14945244.29b93b3f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:53:03 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_89.14945244.29b93b3f_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_89.14945244.29b93b3f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/7/2002 3:15:38 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > 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 What a relief! They'll never be false for that reason. But this assumes that {lo su'o broda} is different from {lo ro broda}, which it ain't. To be consistent, you should probably not collapse {su'o lo su'o broda} since that breaks the pattern you are establishing (misleading). Speaking of exasperating! You persist in MISunderstanding {ro} though you have been corrected God knows how many times over just about all the years you have been in the Lojban game. If {lo'i broda} refers to the empty set, any basic sentence containing {lo broda} or some variant on it is false (or meaningless or however you want to deal with it) because one of its presuppositions (that {lo broda} refers to some things) is false. Remember the assumed quantifier on {lo} is {su'o} which cannot be larger than the size of the set being drawn from. As I keep saying, since the two are exactly the same, if one of them has import so does the other, or if one doesn't neither does the other. I suppose we could make the case that, since they use different words, they are different, but that seems to me too small a difference, since they refer to the same thing directly(and it would only work if used consistently). Quantifier + {da} overtly refers to a different thing (the universal "thing" set) and so is more usefully taken to be the non-importing form. Personally, even there, I would like that {da poi broda} were still importing and restrict the free forms to {ro da broda naja brode} and the like, but I know I can't get that to fly. --part1_89.14945244.29b93b3f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/7/2002 3:15:38 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


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


What a relief!  They'll never be false for that reason.

<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.>

But this assumes that {lo su'o broda} is different from {lo ro broda}, which it ain't.  To be consistent, you should probably not collapse {su'o lo su'o broda} since that breaks the pattern you are establishing (misleading). 


<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.>

Speaking of exasperating!  You persist in MISunderstanding {ro} though you have been corrected God knows how many times over just about all the years you have been in the Lojban game.  If {lo'i broda} refers to the empty set, any basic sentence containing {lo broda} or some variant on it is false (or meaningless or however you want to deal with it) because one of its presuppositions (that {lo broda} refers to some things) is false.  Remember the assumed quantifier on {lo} is {su'o} which cannot be larger than the size of the set being drawn from.

<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+.>

As I keep saying, since the two are exactly the same, if one of them has import so does the other, or if one doesn't neither does the other.  I suppose we could make the case that, since they use different words, they are different, but that seems to me too small a difference, since they refer to the same thing directly(and it would only work if used consistently).  Quantifier + {da} overtly refers to a different thing (the universal "thing" set) and so is more usefully taken to be the non-importing form.  Personally, even there, I would like that {da poi broda} were still importing and restrict the free forms to {ro da broda naja brode} and the like, but I know I can't get that to fly.




--part1_89.14945244.29b93b3f_boundary--