From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Mar 07 18:24:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 8 Mar 2002 02:24:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 8214 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2002 02:20:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2002 02:20:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.204) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2002 02:20:32 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:20:32 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.38 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 02:20:31 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 02:20:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2002 02:20:32.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2C3CEB0:01C1C647] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.38] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > > 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. Putting it another way: {me'iro broda cu brode} is false when {lo'i broda} is the empty set. I doubt you would want to disagree with that, since that is part of the overlap of our systems. ... >But this assumes that {lo su'o broda} is different from {lo ro broda}, >which >it ain't. I am tired of agreeing with you that {[su'o] lo su'o broda} is the same as {[su'o] lo ro broda}. Both give rise to I+. We agree there. That in no way means that {ro lo su'o broda} is the same as {ro lo ro broda}. In my system they are not the same. >To be consistent, you should probably not collapse {su'o lo su'o >broda} since that breaks the pattern you are establishing (misleading). Collapse it to what? {su'o broda} is by definition {su'o lo ro broda}, and this is (but not by definition!) equivalent to {su'o lo su'o broda}. >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. Since I have never accepted your correction, you should not keep speaking as if I had. If you want, you can say that we use the word {ro} with different meanings. At least I don't read what you say as if you were using it with my meaning, which is what you keep doing to me and which so exasperates me. I can understand it you doing it once or twice, but not every time again and again. If you can't accept that the way I'm using {ro} is reasonable, that's ok. I only ask that you don't continue as if I had accepted your meaning and then interpret what I say in your terms, because obviously that won't reflect my intentions. >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. And I have never disagreed with that. Remember that {lo broda} is an abbreviation for {su'o lo broda}. But {no lo broda} or {ro lo broda} are different beasts which don't involve {[su'o] lo broda}, despite superficial appearances. > Remember >the assumed quantifier on {lo} is {su'o} which cannot be larger than the >size >of the set being drawn from. We have no disagreement about {su'o lo broda}. May I remind you again what my system is? A- ro [lo ro] broda E- no [lo ro] broda I+ su'o [lo ro] broda = su'o lo su'o broda O+ me'iro [lo ro] broda = me'iro lo su'o broda A+ ro lo su'o broda E+ no lo su'o broda I- naku no lo su'o broda O- naku ro lo su'o broda The first four are what I believe you called the "modern" system. The particular rules of abbreviation in Lojban would allow to say those four most compactly. You may not like this way of doing it, but I don't think it is inconsistent. If you find an inconsistency please point it out. To me it is the most intuitive, and it allows to write any of the four quantifiers in terms of each of the others: ro broda = no broda naku (= da'ano broda) = naku me'iro broda = naku su'o broda naku (= naku da'asu'o broda) no broda = ro broda naku (= da'aro broda) = naku su'o broda = naku me'iro broda naku (= naku da'ame'iro broda) su'o broda = me'iro broda naku (= da'ame'iro broda) = naku no broda = naku ro broda naku (= naku da'aro broda) me'iro broda = su'o broda naku (= da'asu'o broda) = naku ro broda = naku no broda naku (= naku da'asu'o broda) In your system it is much more complicated to express these simple relationships amongst A-, E-, I+ and O+. There are of course parallel relationships involving the other four, but many of them are defective because we already use {naku} to represent I- and O- (something which as I understand it you don't object to, because your only problem is with the way I do A- and E-). mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com