Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

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

In a message dated 9/22/2002 8:36:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> I did not accept that it was correct for Lojban. Only that it would
> not be logically inconsistent. But I consider it a bad choice,
> because it is more complicated, and thus incorrect for Lojban in
> that sense.
>>
All of the supposed complications are exactly paralleled for your system, and 
more likely to need to be used there, since the non-importing {ro} is less 
common in actual usage than the importing. Also, since Lojban is following 
formal logic, it is more or less forced to the importing form that that logic 
uses (the apparent exception being an aberration that ran briefly form about 
1858 to 1958).

<<
>Do you really, by the way, want {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} to 
>be
>true even if there is nothing in the world at all?

Yes, vacuously true. I can't imagine a context where it
would come up, though.
Oops! See how hard it is to even think of non-importing affirmative 
universals. I meant to say {ro da broda} but immediately fell into the 
formula needed in normal discourse to make "non-importing" claims.