From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Sep 28 11:25:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 18:25:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 46262 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 18:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 18:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 18:25:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17vMK1-00081C-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:28:09 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vMJT-00080u-00; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:27:35 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vMJO-00080l-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:27:30 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8SIVaGZ042970 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:31:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8SIVaxK042969 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:31:36 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:31:36 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020928183136.GA42897@allusion.net> References: <20020928172256.GA42095@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1672 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 06:00:27PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical connectives > > for this.=20 [...] > Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to=20 > {ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since > logically they are essentially the same thing. What chapter, please? > > And since you're arguing against the left to right > > interpretation, shouldn't {paroi ro le re djedi} mean once in all > > of the two days? >=20 > That's the interpretation I'm arguing against. I'm arguing > for "once in each of the two days". Right; since you are arguing against it, I would assume you should be trying to show how that interpretation breaks things, instead of showing examples using the interpretation you prefer without relating them to the left-to-right interpretation. > > > Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and > > > unwanted effects on logical connectives. > >=20 > > Where's the perverse effects? *boggle* >=20 > If {paroi ro le re djedi} means "once in the whole of the two > days", then {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} has to mean that > also, which would be perverse, because there would be no way=20 > to get the {e} out of the influence of {paroi}.=20 All you've done here is proved that your quantifer-connective thing is just plain false. > > I think you have the expansion wrong (I have no idea why you moved > > paroiku into the prenex. This was recently discussed in another > > thread: the only thing which exports to the prenex is naku).=20 >=20 > Everything can export to the prenex. The other discussion was > about the fact that the only thing that exports to the prenex=20 > out of order is {na} (it always jumps to first position).=20 > {naku} exports in correct order, like everything else. Right, but if you move paroiku to the prenex, you have to define other terms there in the same order also. Otherwise you break the sentence (like you did). You can't move terms to the prenex out of order without changing the meaning ("na" doesn't parse as a term, but this is true for "naku", which is a term). > > It > > actually expands to: > > mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas. > > I went to paris exactly once; I went to rome exactly once. > > Which is exactly what you would expect from a logical connective. >=20 > I proposed both alternatives. To make it more clear: >=20 > paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas >=20 > Expands to: >=20 > paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas No it doesn't. What rule are you claiming it expands to this under? The only expansion rule I know of for logical connectives clearly says that this becomes mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas. > The question is, does it further expand to: >=20 > paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas=20 >=20 > I think it should not. In any case, whatever applies to=20 > {ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}. Again, what support do you have for this claim? --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lfWIDrrilS51AZ8RAgrdAJ4qP6Il4uDoFygwhZQjdKsqJ0C2xgCfUpkW tJzp4LYDYWRncnYMCdAUMrs= =///o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--