Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:46:10 -0600

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:59:00AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
> As far as I can see, then, the book is contradictory (for entirely
> pardonable reasons!). So we have two choices.
> 
> Q1. Does {(ro) da poi broda} entail {da broda}?
> Q2. Is {na ku ro broda cu broda} equivalent to {su'o broda cu na ku 
> brode}?
> 
> Option A Option B
> Q1 NO YES
> Q2 YES NO

I think you have this entirely wrong -- see my response to your
other message.

To me it seems like our options are actually:

Option A Option B
Q1 YES NO
Q2 YES NO

If we take away import from universals we'd have to change the negation
boundary rules because:
naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi (with import) !=
su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi
The latter claims there are unicorns in the world, the first doesn't.
In order for these to be equal we need "ro da" ("no da", etc) to import.

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku