Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:35:41

la and cusku di'e

>Perhaps "ro lu'a lo'i broda" is not importing either -- I don't think 
>that's
>been discussed at all.

For me it is not importing. I think pc might say {ro lu'a lo'i broda}
is nonsense when {lo'i broda} is the empty set.

>I have to concede that, from my *severely* limited knowledge of
>restricted quantification, r.q. is importing,

I wouldn't know how to check that. Would you say for example that
this page is wrong:

http://www.wabash.edu/depart/Phil/classmaterials/Phil3F99/Phil3txt/Phil3txt7/Phil3txt73/Phil3txt733.html

When it moves very freely from restricted form (Ax:Sx)Px
to unrestricted Ax(Sx->Px)

>I am fairly confident that this entire thread will have zero effect on
>usage, but the participants seem to have derived pleasure from it,
>which is enough.

I did. I think the introduction of the +/- notation in this
round of the discussion was a big step forward, as we can now
avoid the "A entails I, no it doesn't, yes it does" silliness.
Everybody agrees that A+ entails I+ and that A- does not
entail I+.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.