From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 22 12:47:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 19:47:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 83325 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 19:47:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 19:47:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 19:47:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.74.23664d04 (4402) for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <74.23664d04.2abf785c@aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:47:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_74.23664d04.2abf785c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_74.23664d04.2abf785c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 9:26:18 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > I don't remember it being settled and decided (by whom?) the way > you want. For me {ro} is non-importing. >> Actually, on 15-03-02 you set forth (again) your system, acknowledging that it was aberrant, and claiming for it a simplicity that it turned out not to have when actually applied or worked out theoretically. That aside you acknowledged the correctness -- within Lojban of the importing system. Your {ro} is just {ro ni'u}, which is rarely useful and on those occasions is easily reached by falling back to standard Logic notation (your claim that ordinary {ro} can be reached in the same way from {ro ni'u} is true, but hardly an efficient suggestion. Of course, we still disagree about whether "every" -- you probably say "all" -- really has existential import.) << So for you {ga broda ginai broda} can be false for selected broda? For me it's a tautology. >> I'm not sure that I understand this, but I suppose you mean {lo brode ga broda ginai brode} can be false. Yes, it can, if there are no brode. But, note, {naku le brode ga broda ginai brode} is false as well, so tautological status is not affected -- the sentence is merely ill-formed at a low level. --part1_74.23664d04.2abf785c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/21/2002 9:26:18 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

I don't remember it being settled and decided (by whom?) the way
you want. For me {ro} is non-importing.

>>
Actually, on 15-03-02 you set forth (again) your system, acknowledging that it was aberrant, and claiming for it a simplicity that it turned out not to have when actually applied or worked out theoretically. That aside you acknowledged the correctness -- within Lojban of the importing system. Your {ro} is just {ro ni'u}, which is rarely useful and on those occasions is easily reached by falling back to standard Logic notation (your claim that ordinary {ro} can be reached in the same way from {ro ni'u} is true, but hardly an efficient suggestion. Of course, we still disagree about whether "every" -- you probably say "all" -- really has existential import.)

<<
So for you {ga broda ginai broda} can be false for selected broda?
For me it's a tautology.
>>
I'm not sure that I understand this, but I suppose you mean {lo brode ga broda ginai brode} can be false. Yes, it can, if there are no brode. But, note, {naku le brode ga broda ginai brode} is false as well, so tautological status is not affected -- the sentence is merely ill-formed at a low level.
--part1_74.23664d04.2abf785c_boundary--