Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:47:40 EDT

In a message dated 9/21/2002 9:26:18 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.