Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:29:51 +0000

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