From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Fri Nov 08 19:25:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 9 Nov 2002 03:25:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 46749 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2002 03:25:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Nov 2002 03:25:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.139) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Nov 2002 03:25:25 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail011.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gA93PON18782 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:25:24 +1100 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:25:24 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: importing ro To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis Wait a minute, I'm now even more lost than usual. Lots of logic and semantics textbooks (including my own, as I check) have {ro} non-importing. It has been asserted that non-importing {ro} is the current logic mainstream. John and pc want it importing. Jorge offers a solomontean solution, but would basically prefer it non-importing? I agree with msg 17041. In particular, I repudiate, now and forever, any notion of continuity between Loglan and Lojban, and what Lojban is shall only be what we Lojbanists decide, not what the Loglanists thought. I don't have a "Jorge is Usually Right" dictum, but a "John is Usually Right dictum." But I can and do disagree with him, on vo'a, and now on this. Jordan is correct in his latest, that John's 0/0 argument is bogus. Moreover, I have no earthly idea why 99ce'i being importing should imply that ro is importing. ro is not 100%, and ro is not *just* a fractional quantifier. ro is the universal quantifier. (Whether or not 99ce'i means 99ce'i lo su'o is an argument for another day.) Just becaue canonical fractional quantifiers may or may not be importing, does not mean {ro} need be. As a meta point, this is like what I said in the {coi xirma doi xirma} Wiki page. When we have a choice in Lojban, we can choose what is more elegant and conforming to other parts of the grammar, or what is more useful. I don't think making {ro} behave just like {99ce'i} is more useful, and I now make usefulness my criterion. (This may be yet another fliparound towards naturalism.) And, if you agree with everything Jordan said in 17040 (where he adamantly supports non-importing), then how is that consistent with you going Solomontean? I'm utterly confused about what the arguments are. xod on 17044 is right, and the logic references I've seen say pretty much the same. In 17059, John is misconstruing him: "66% of unicorns are male" is also valid. The Existential Fallacy view is that anything you say about non-existents is trivially true --- and falsity needs counterexamples to exist. That's my response to 17066, too. Inasmuch as I understand what's currently going on, I vote Jordan. -- It appears to be a real script (or a board game), and there are people who want to be able to work with the script as part of the decipherment process. On the other hand, there *is* just the one document (or board game), so there's only so much one can do. (John Jenkins on the Phaistos Disk; Unicode mailing list) Dr Nick Nicholas. nickn@unimelb.edu.au http://www.opoudjis.net