Subject: [lojban] Re: importing ro

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:30:28 -0000

Robin:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:38:58AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > xod:
> > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I had forgotten that you don't accept
> > > >
> > > > ro broda cu brode
> > > > = ro da poi broda cu brode
> > 
> > It's legitimate by simple logical and linguistic criteria 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> That seems to me like debating that
> 
> All As
> 
> is equivalent to
> 
> All Xs such that X is an A
> 
> Debating that equivalence seems amazingly non-sensical to me. In fact,
> that is exactly how I was tought to convert natural-language sentences
> with 'all' in them into predicate logic, IIRC 

The equivalence you state is a fact about the correspondences between
English sentences and their logical meanings. In principle, Lojban
could operate with different correspondences, so long as they were
compatible with the guiding principles of Lojban.

In practise, the current choice comes down to whether you want
{ro broda cu brode} to mean the same thing as {ro broda ga na broda
gi brode}. It really is up to us to choose; neither choice is
intrinsically right or wrong.

--And.