From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Sep 23 07:29:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 23 Sep 2002 14:29:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22578 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2002 14:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Sep 2002 14:29:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.177) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2002 14:29:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:29:51 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:29:51 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:29:51 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2002 14:29:51.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADADFA20:01C2630D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e >All of the supposed complications are exactly paralleled for your system, Not really. In my system, ro = no naku = naku su'o naku = naku me'iro. Some of those don't work with other systems. That's what makes them complicated. >and >more likely to need to be used there, since the non-importing {ro} is less >common in actual usage than the importing. How can you tell? In most usage we don't deal with empty sets, so it makes no difference. A clearly non-importing case would be saying something like "the only world where every politician is honest is a world with no politicians" (we don't like politicians much around here these days). >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). Are those the dates of some particular events? >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. {ro da broda} would be true in an empty universe, yes. Is that problematic? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com