Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 22:06:26 +0000

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