From nessus@free.fr Sat Sep 21 09:11:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 21 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 15689 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.25) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 16:11:50 -0000 Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760C25009E35F1 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:11:50 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.236.5) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D801204005B30E1 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:11:50 +0200 Message-ID: <002001c2618b$53d4d240$05ecf8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: "lojban" References: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:22:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf and: > I don't see a difference between {pa lo su'o} and {pa lo ro}. What > am I missing? It does not matter as long as you exclude the case of 0 with {ro}, and this... pc: >The {ro}-{su'o} distinction goes back to a time when someone thought >that {ro}, "every," permitted the case of 0 of the whatsis and {su'o} > did not. The first part of this turned out to be false in the official line I did not know that the case was settled. In any cases, the book is not at all explicit about this and I think I remember a recent mail from xorxes where he says he does include 0. This being said, I agree that {ro} should not include the 0 case from a logical and practical point of view. > > Note that {pa broda} is nonetheless still the same in > > our case than {tu'o broda}. > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Sorry, that was badly expressed: I meant that the truth value and the implication on the referent cardinality would be the same. > 1. {lo pa} is sensitive to negation: whereas {tu'o broda na brode} > is unproblematic, it corresponds to {lo pa broda na ku brode}, not > to {lo pa broda na brode}. Interresting: you seem to think that {naku} will have an impact on moving through {lo pa}. I don't think {naku} will change the inner quantifier of the {lo} expression. That is: {lo pa broda naku brode} = {su 'o lo pa broda naku brode} = {naku zu'o ro lo pa broda cu brode} = {ro lo pa broda na brode} and, again with exclusion of the 0 case of {ro} = {lo pa broda na brode} Now, I may have a problem with the semantic of {na} and {naku}, specifically with the negation of the referent existence: providing that with {lo broda cu brode} I claim 2 things, the existence of at least one {broda} referent, and the {brode} relationship, does the {na} or {naku} in {lo broda na/naku brode}, apart from deying the {brode} relationship, still claim (or imply) the existence of at least one {broda} referent? I would say yes with both {na} and {naku}, but after reading again the related chapters of the book, I can't say it has been made explicit (or I failed to see it). > 2. {lo pa} makes a claim. I do not wish it to have to be the case > that whenever I talk about a du'u I also claim that there is only > one du'u. If I say {lo pa broda cu brode} I am claiming that > (i) something is broda and brode, and (ii) the cardinality of > lo'i broda is 1. But I want to be able to claim only (i). If you want to claim only (i), than {lo} alone does just that. > First off, let me note that {lo'e} serves as an adequate alternative > to {tu'o}. As I understand now your definition of {lo'e}, it cannot be a true alternative to {tu'o}: {lo'e broda cu brode} can be true even if {lo broda} has no referent, because {lo'e broda} is mainly an category abstraction and does have a referent, while {tu'o broda} implies the existence of a broda referent. But I may have misunderstood your definition of {lo'e, given in the ever lasting thread on 'chocolate and unicorns' :-) mu'omi'e lioNEL