Subject: Re: [lojban] ... and rape

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:41:18 -0400

Ivan A Derzhanski wrote:

> And whence does it follow that the said act does take place in spite
> of x1's failure to permit it? The definition of {curmi} (`x1 (agent)
> lets/permits/allows x2 (event) under conditions x3; x1 grants
> privilege x2') makes it sound as though if the privilege is not
> granted, the event doesn't happen.

I think my use of bridi negation was erroneous. With polar negation,
se tolcru gletu, we get "forbidden sex", and with a well-designed lujvo, we
can equate c1 with g1, achieving "c1 forbids that c1=g1 copulates with g2".
(I take it that gletu is symmetric, although that is not stated.)

But I don't see the force of your argument about curmi: considered in
isolation, it simply provides a property of events, that is, that they
are authorized by x1. This is absolutely independent of the actuality
of the event. An event may fail to occur even though permitted, and an
event may occur even though forbidden; otherwise we would all be ants.

-- 
There is / one art || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein