Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:13 EST

In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:26:48 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
<<
> I had forgotten that you don't accept
> 
> ro broda cu brode
> = ro da poi broda cu brode
>> 
Only if the latter = ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode. One equation or 
the other is fine, just not both (which reduces the first to the last).

<<
You have no grounds for saying this "is just not true", unless it
is clearly stated in the Red Book of Woldemar. It is not a question
of logic, it is merely a question of Lojban. Those two structures
are equivalent if we decree they are and not equivalent if we
decree they aren't. They are Lojban bridi, not logical formulas.
Well, it is about as clear in CLL as almost anything else -- that is, not 
very. Still, over the years the case for it has become clearer. As for 
whether the two sentences (I mean the clear cases, {ro broda cu brode} and 
{ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da brode} -- I agree that the {da poi} case 
could go either way) are equivalent, I suppose that, since they look exactly 
like two different sentences in Logic and Lojban is spoken Logic, I expect 
that the difference will carry over. Otherwise, some part of this story has 
to go, and then the floodgates are open.

<<
I really don't see what we have to lose by agreeing on the 3-way
equation, except for confusion and endless discussion. If you
want {ro broda cu brode} to entail {su'o broda cu brode}, let's
judt define you an experimental cmavo ro'o'o that works your
way & then everyone is happy.
You do have it backwards, you know. The importing {ro} has been here for 
going on 50 years, so the {ro'o'o} goes for non-importing one (actually, 
there are better versions for it -- {ro da ganai gi} being the most obvious).

<<
In the light of this, can we take this issue as settled? In the
spirit of resolving the debate, I will even offer to document
ro'o'o on the wiki (to the best of my ability), if you wish.
don't care about {ro'o'o}, so long as you get the basic stuff right: {ro} 
always and everywhere imports for its subject. It does seem that you do not 
have that bit down yet after all these years.