From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Nov 06 14:06:27 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 22:06:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 90367 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 22:06:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 22:06:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.176)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 22:06:27 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
  Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:06:27 -0800
Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
  Wed, 06 Nov 2002 22:06:26 GMT
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 22:06:26 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F176VhxdAtzHXV1m4Yo0000d706@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2002 22:06:27.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0A39630:01C285E0]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000


la djorden cusku di'e

>With a *nonimporting* ro,
>	naku ro pavyseljirna != su'o pavyseljirna naku
>	(and the book says this is equal).

You have this backwards. The equality holds for nonimporting ro,
it does not hold for importing ro.

>So with a nonimporting "ro da" we'd keep "naku ro da ..." as
>importing?

Of course. Negation reverses importingness.

>This is a lot less elegant than the way AndR suggests,

This is not a choice, unless you want to make importingness
a presupposition (i.e. untouched by negation). Then neither
{naku ro broda cu brode} nor {ro broda cu brode} would be
true when there are no broda.

> > It can be made consistent, but then we would have to drop the ability to
> > move negation across quantifiers while switching the quantifier, which
> > is also inconsistent with the book.
>
>You have yet to show any inconsistency. Just repeating that one
>is there doesn't do much.

But he is right. Either {ro} is nonimporting, or you can't
move a negation across switching to {su'o}. You can't have your
cake and eat it too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


