From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Nov 06 17:57:15 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Nov 2002 01:57:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 94080 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 01:57:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Nov 2002 01:57:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mrin02.st1.spray.net) (212.78.193.8)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 01:57:14 -0000
Received: from lmin04.st1.spray.net (lmin04.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.104])
  by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7542484EF
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:57:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-176.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.176])
  by lmin04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876991C12F
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:57:11 +0100 (MET)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: importing ro
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 01:58:58 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGEFHGNAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F194ebfCrxZ3mFQb4GP00002f45@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

xorxes:
> (1) "non-importing ro"
> ro broda cu brode
> = ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode
> 
> (2) "importing ro"
> ro broda cu brode
> = ge de broda gi ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode
> 
> (3) "non-importing su'o"
> su'o broda cu brode
> = ganai de broda gi su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode
> 
> (4) "importing su'o"
> su'o broda cu brode
> = su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode
> 
> (5) "DeMorgan"
> ro broda cu brode = naku su'o broda naku brode
> 
> The self-consistent possibilities are:
> 
> A- (1), (4) and (5)
> B- (2), (3) and (5)
> C- (2) and (4)
> D- (1) and (3)
> 
> The Book supports in one part or another (2), (4) and (5)
> which is an inconsistent position 

My preference is for nonimporting {ro} (regardless of whether
logic's universal quantifier is importing). Failing that, I go
for it being da that is importing, which is consistent with
the book & finds favour with John and Jordan. 

Anyway, I wonder whether (5) really is De Morgan. Wouldn't true 
DeMorgan be:

ro da ga na broda gi brode = na ku su'o da ge broda gi na ku brode

(5) would not be true DeMorgan precisely if {ro broda cu brode}
is not equivalent to {ro da ga na broda gi brode} (but is 
instead equivalent to {ro lo su'o broda cu brode}.

> If we want to keep DeMorgan, then we must choose A or B. Nobody
> wants (3) so we all agree to discard B and D. pc prefers C,
> sacrificing DeMorgan as expressed in (5). I prefer A, because
> I think (5) is valuable and I don't find (1) counterintuitive 
> 
> The whole issue is irrelevant in 99.99% of usage 

I'm not so sure. It may be irrelevant to 99.9% of usage as a
whole, but is it irrelevant to 99.9% of usage of ro? I
don't think so -- necessarily-nonimporting "every" is very
common in English (at least in the varieties I'm exposed to
in quotidian and professional life); pc's experience differs).

--And.