Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:13:11 EDT

In a message dated 9/23/2002 2:29:24 AM Central Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

<<
> After reading the nice page of xorxes on the Wiki exposing clearly
> the controversal sentences, I am not sure any more, and you and
> xorxes may be just plain right on the ground of the same practical
> and ease of use I advocated. I have to think more about it
>>
I must read -- and respond to -- xorxes piece (the short stays aol is 
allowing me on-line cuts into my wiki reading). I think I know what it says, 
though, and while it is probably mostly correct, the conclusions would draw 
are not supposrted by the evidence adduced. Gieve Logic and common snese a 
turn before you make up your mind (not that either of thses have much of a r
ecord of success in the logical language).

<<
consider {OUTER lo INNER broda na brode}
Would you say that this is true when:
the brode relationship is false
or the cardinality of the underlying set of broda given by INNER is false
or the cardinality of the broda involved in the relationship given
by OUTER is false
(with of course inclusive or).
1) yes
2)yes -- but because {na'i} is true (i.e., {OUTER lo INNER broda cu brode} is 
also false.)
3) yes

<<
I am not sure of
what you mean with 'presupposition implicature'.
I'm not sure I can give the official definition (it is a piece of jargon, so 
don't worry if you can't work it out from its parts). The idea, as it 
affects the present case, certain things must be true for a particular 
sentence to be asserted or, classically, a particular question asked. To be 
meaningfully asked "Have you stopped beating your wife" requires at least 
that you have a wife and that you have beaten her. Failing this the question 
is meaningless. To answer either "Yes" or "No" to the question is to admit to 
all the presuppositions -- and to add either that you have now stopped or 
that you are continuing the beating.
So the point here is that uttering a sentence with {lo INNER broda} in it -- 
even if INNER is implicit -- commits you to there being INNER broda. If 
there are not, then the whole is meaningless, {na'i}-false -- and so is its 
denial. Negations and negation boundaries do not affect this inner value. 
We do not say that the negation of {lo broda cu brode}, {lo brode na brode} 
is going to result in {ro lo me'iro brode naku brode} when we move the 
negation through, but just {ro lo broda naku brode} where {lo broda} is still 
implictly {lo ro broda} (I'm not even sure just what {me'iro} might mean as 
an INNER).