From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Nov 08 11:35:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 19:35:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 69012 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 19:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 19:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 19:35:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18AEuY-0006qz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:35:22 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AEuS-0006qi-00; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:35:16 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrin02.spray.se ([212.78.193.8] helo=mrin02.st1.spray.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18AEuM-0006pz-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:35:11 -0800 Received: from lmin05.st1.spray.net (lmin05.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.105]) by mrin02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE8324EBC8 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:34:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-58.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.58]) by lmin05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7527A14B9E for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:34:28 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Attempting to bring the ro debate to a resolution Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:36:21 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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: <20021108170710.GB85425@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 2544 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jordan DeLong [mailto:fracture@allusion.net] > Sent: 08 November 2002 17:07 > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Cc: And Rosta > Subject: Re: Attempting to bring the ro debate to a resolution > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 07:08:52AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > And Rosta scripsit: > > > The position supported by everybody except pc (= me, xorxes, Jordan, > > > Adam, Nick + probably xod & Robin -- everybody who's participated, > > > & probably the remainder of Lojbanists too) is this: > > > > > > A. ro broda cu brode = ro da poi broda cu brode > > > B. ro da poi broda cu broda = ro da ga na broda gi brode > > > C. ro broda cu brode = ro da ga na broda gi brode > > > > > > The position supported by pc is that C is definitely invalid, while > > > either one of A and B may be declared valid, with the other one > > > declared invalid (though his preference is for A to be valid and > > > B to be invalid) > > Well, let me say that I would prefer if it could just be decided > that {ro} is nonimporting. Under those circumstances the logical > structure of {ro broda cu brode} is still A(broda(x)) (brode(x)), > which happens to have the same truth conditions as Ax(broda(x) -> > brode(x)) > > Actually I'll go so far as to say that this method of resolving the > issue isn't consistent with relatively clauses in lojban in general, > so it's best to just stick with the point, which is whether {ro} > imports > > The consensus I'd like to see, (and it seems like it is certainly > within reach) is that {ro} is noniporting, and that C is only valid > in that they have the same truth conditions [...] > Thus either "naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi" is also false, or the > naku boundary rules in the book don't work > > In my view changing import of {ro} is far less disruptive than > changing the naku boundary rules, and nonimporting gives us the > ability to talk about lo'i pavyseljirna when there's none of them > (we could get this using AndR's trick of thinking about the *da* > as the thing which imports, but we'd still need to change the naku > rules in that case) > > Furthermore, I don't think nonimporting ro is as abnormal as pc is > leading us to believe > > > > The debate about whether the universal quantifier and/or ro is > > > importing is pretty much a red-herring, because it boils down to > > > a question of the effect of an empty universe on truth values > > > > I agree > > I don't: I think import of {ro} is the real issue here I confess that I agree with everything you say in this message. My zeal for getting this issue resolved blinded me momentarily. --And.