From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 23 17:26:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 24 Sep 2002 00:26:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 87735 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 00:26:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Sep 2002 00:26:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 00:26:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.11c.178cf211 (17377) for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:26:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11c.178cf211.2ac10b4b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:26:51 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11c.178cf211.2ac10b4b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_11c.178cf211.2ac10b4b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 5:31:58 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > My sense > is that in the one case where no might plausibly be the cardinality, > viz after lo'i, one generally wants to allow for the possibility of > no. > > What other solutions are there? >> Well, we have something for {ro-}, non-importing {ro}: {ro ni'u}, I think. << FWIW, my schooling is such that I automatically take ro broda and ro da poi broda to NOT entail da broda. So if for no other reason than sheer habit, I prefer nonimporting ro. >> Interesting. What were you schooled as and where? Even mathematicians and linguists pretty much get this right. But, since what you say is sorta mixed categories, I suppose you might have gotten that all from someone confused by a semieducation in the area. I suppose you mean {ro broda cu brode} and {ro da poi broda cu brode} entail {da broda} (or you mean "implicate" rather than "entail"). It is quite true that for many people much of the time "All broda are brode" does not entail "There are broda," but by the same token, {ro broda cu brode} or {ro da poi broda cu brode} are not translations of that sentence (in that sense), rather {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} is, just like we learned in Logic 01. {ro broda cu brode} etc. translate what is in my dialect "Every broda is a brode" or "Each broda is a brode." Some native speakers of English claim that their dialect does not make this distinction, but, curiously, they then divide into two groups over which of the two possibilities there uniform universal is -- with most going for the non-importing admittedly. << But I go along with the general desire to minimize presupposition (though Lionel's suggestion of an explicit marker of presupposition might be nice, though I'll leave it to someone else to propose it, since I'm weary of incurring the scorn of Jay and Jordan). >> The trick seems to be a metaconjuction that works at one level like an ordinary conjunction but at another level is not attached until all the other operations have been gone through (see some of the stuff about interdefining the various types of quantifiers earlier this year). --part1_11c.178cf211.2ac10b4b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2002 5:31:58 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

My sense
is that in the one case where no might plausibly be the cardinality,
viz after lo'i, one generally wants to allow for the possibility of
no.

What other solutions are there?

>>
Well, we have something for {ro-}, non-importing {ro}: {ro ni'u}, I think.

<<
FWIW, my schooling is such that I automatically take ro broda and
ro da poi broda to NOT entail da broda. So if for no other reason
than sheer habit, I prefer nonimporting ro.
>>
Interesting. What were you schooled as and where? Even mathematicians and linguists pretty much get this right. But, since what you say is sorta mixed categories, I suppose you might have gotten that all from someone confused by a semieducation in the area. I suppose you mean {ro broda cu brode} and {ro da poi broda cu brode} entail {da broda} (or you mean "implicate" rather than "entail"). It is quite true that for many people much of the time "All broda are brode" does not entail "There are broda," but by the same token, {ro broda cu brode} or {ro da poi broda cu brode} are not translations of that sentence (in that sense), rather {ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} is, just like we learned in Logic 01. {ro broda cu brode} etc. translate what is in my dialect "Every broda is a brode" or "Each broda is a brode." Some native speakers of English claim that their dialect does not make this distinction, but, curiously, they then divide into two groups over which of the two possibilities there uniform universal is -- with most going for the non-importing admittedly.

<<
But I go along with the general desire to minimize presupposition
(though Lionel's suggestion of an explicit marker of presupposition
might be nice, though I'll leave it to someone else to propose it,
since I'm weary of incurring the scorn of Jay and Jordan).
>>
The trick seems to be a metaconjuction that works at one level like an ordinary conjunction but at another level is not attached until all the other operations have been gone through (see some of the stuff about interdefining the various types of quantifiers earlier this year).
--part1_11c.178cf211.2ac10b4b_boundary--