From pycyn@aol.com Sat Mar 09 10:22:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 9 Mar 2002 18:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 63736 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2002 18:22:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Mar 2002 18:22:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2002 18:22:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.122.d76b97c (17378) for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:22:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <122.d76b97c.29bbacef@aol.com> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:22:39 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_122.d76b97c.29bbacef_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_122.d76b97c.29bbacef_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 10:48:39 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >What about {su'o broda cu zasti}? Presumably false, but also I-, so it > >ought > >to be true. > > It is false, and it is I+ in my system, as well as in yours. > So I see, but it has the no importing set at its base -- what I mean bybeing unable to decipher the principles involved here. Well, having the same delusions about {ro} probably helps working through this. <>The set can be empty, but then the reference to its members has to be >treated in whatever way is appropriate for expressions that don't have a >referent. I'm not sure what the Lojban rule is about that, if there is >one. If you're not sure that there is a Lojban rule, why is the one I'm proposing against Lojban?> General principle: a rule based on a false assumption is very likely going to turn out to be the wrong rule. It turns out that there are several contextually dependent rules about meaningless expressions, but I have to admit that none of them is very clear -- usage not having decided nor authority. Same principle. Your rules may not be incoherent in themselves but they are incompatible with Lojban principles. Whether they are a better set of rules will have to wait for the Lojban set to appear. I've sent around a first shot for comment, and then we can see what develops. I think they they might at a number of crucial points -- exactly when existential plays a role -- issues like whether or not there are workable peace proposals, for example, regardless of whether all of them are flawed. It's already happened, so I think that -- on the off chance anybody else paid any attention -- we should continue of Lojban. --part1_122.d76b97c.29bbacef_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 10:48:39 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

>What about {su'o broda cu zasti}? Presumably false, but also I-, so it
>ought
>to be true.

It is false, and it is I+ in my system, as well as in yours.

So I see, but it has the no importing set at its base -- what I mean bybeing unable to decipher the principles involved here.

<Well, And seems to have understood me, so I can at least consider
that my failure to explain it to you may not be entirely my fault.>

Well, having the same delusions about {ro} probably helps working through this.

<>The set can be empty, but then the reference to its members has to be
>treated in whatever way is appropriate for expressions that don't have a
>referent. I'm not sure what the Lojban rule is about that, if there is
>one.

If you're not sure that there is a Lojban rule, why is the one
I'm proposing against Lojban?>

General principle: a rule based on a false assumption is very likely going to turn out to be the wrong rule. It turns out that there are several contextually dependent rules about meaningless expressions, but I have to admit that none of them is very clear -- usage not having decided nor authority.

<If we don't even have Lojban rules, the ones I'm proposing are
not against Lojban rules. An of course if you would show that
my proposal gives rise to inaccuracy or incoherence I would have
to shut up about it, but you haven't.>

Same principle. Your rules may not be incoherent in themselves but they are incompatible with Lojban principles. Whether they are a better set of rules will have to wait for the Lojban set to appear. I've sent around a first shot for comment, and then we can see what develops.

<I hardly think the existential import of {ro} warrants a new
language. Would anyone ever notice that they are two different
languages?>

I think they they might at a number of crucial points -- exactly when existential plays a role -- issues like whether or not there are workable peace proposals, for example, regardless of whether all of them are flawed.

<I'm moving this back to jboske then. The problem is that
reply-to in jboske is not sent to the list, so I probably
end up bringing it back to lojban by mistake.>

It's already happened, so I think that -- on the off chance anybody else paid any attention -- we should continue of Lojban.

--part1_122.d76b97c.29bbacef_boundary--