Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:27:39 +0000

la and cusku di'e

> > (5) "DeMorgan"
> > ro broda cu brode = naku su'o broda naku brode
>
>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}.

Yes. It doesn't really matter what names we use. The central
point is that if we want {naku ro broda cu brode} to be
equivalent to {su'o broda naku brode}, we have to define
{ro broda cu brode} as {ro da ganai broda gi brode}. If we
don't define it like that, then the negation passage won't
always work.

> > 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).

You may be right. It would be interesting to see the results
if someone actually took the trouble of going through some
corpus to measure the relative frequencies.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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