From nessus@free.fr Tue Sep 24 00:00:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 24 Sep 2002 07:00:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 15755 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 07:00:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Sep 2002 07:00:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.233) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 07:00:15 -0000 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D760D7C00B2AAC4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:00:15 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.41.229) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D801208006ECE24 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:00:15 +0200 Message-ID: <002201c26399$c5f35580$e529f8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] tu'o usage Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:11:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "Lionel Vidal" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf >>lionel: > > But to be consistent, this should also be true in when INNER actually set > > the cardinality of the underlying subset of broda, as in{lo ci broda cu > > brode}, > > which I would read as {ge lo'i broda cu ci mei gi lo broda cu brode}, > > and has such is indeed affected by negation boundaries. Or do you consider > > than this cardinality is never really asserted, but belongs to {na'i} > > domain, > > i.e. be the same kind of presupposed implications, despite being explicitly > > stated? > >pc: > > I would claim that it is true in the case of {lo ci broda} as well > > and thus that the expansion you propose is not correct. That is, > > {lo ci broda na brode} doesn't come out as {ro lo na'e ci broda naku > > brode}. That is, yes, INNER is part of the {na'i} domain (I thought > > I said that explicitly. Sigh!) >>and: > You had said that explicitly, but I think Lionel, like me, was taking > the opposing view. Indeed, I take the opposing views. As xorxes pointed it out, the whole issue seems to decide wether the INNER part is claimed or presupposed. IMO it is naturally claimed (the ro case being special, see below): I would find it very strange, to say the least, to consider something explicitly stated as something presupposed. xorxes >So if the inner quantifier is claimed, the manipulation rules are >not at all simple, That is what I was trying to show with my negation of {lo ci broda cu brode}. >except when the inner is non-importing ro, >which makes no claim or presupposition. Yet another argument >in favour of non-importing ro. IMO, for me it is now the main argument in its favour, as it solves my negation moving problems in a satifactory way. mu'omi'e lioNEL