From pycyn@aol.com Tue Apr 17 20:43:17 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 03:43:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 25569 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 03:43:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 03:43:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 03:43:16 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.94.12dc8ba7 (4533) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <94.12dc8ba7.280e674f@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:43:11 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_94.12dc8ba7.280e674f_boundary"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_94.12dc8ba7.280e674f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 4/17/2001 8:50:52 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



> la pycyn cusku di'e
>=20
> >ro lo nelci be leva stizu cu du le mlatu
>=20
> Why the change in word order? Isn't that the same as
> {le mlatu cu du ro lo nelci be le va stizu}?
>=20



Force of habit: first semester logic dislike quantifiers in predicate=20
position.

<Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.>
Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part of the=
=20
language of logic? Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined.

<>{me le mlatu} gets a bit fuzzy, though both might be true if there were
>several cats and they all liked the chair,

No! If there were more than one cat, at least {du} would not
be true! Each of the cats would not be =3D each of the likers.
Each cat would only equal one of the likers.>

Sorry, I forgot that one of the changes that shouldn't have happened was th=
e=20
rule about implicit quantifiers: we got it backwards from the standard.

<>So
>noda poi na du le mlatu cu nelci leva stizu.

Or more succintly: no nardu'o be le mlatu cu nelci le va stizu

But that doesn't say that the cat does like it, which was part
of the original claim.>
Actually the first is the same length and clearer. And, of course (here we=
=20
go on this one again) "only Ss are Ps" does not imply that even a single S =
is=20
P, only that nothing else is. If {po'o} adds the exisatential condition, i=
t=20
is triply misleading instead of only doubly.

<I never really bought that UIs don't affect truth values. At least
some of them certainly do. In any case, all your objections to
{po'o} would also apply to {ji'a}.>

The ones that do, if there are any, are the same bastard creations as {po'o=
}.=20
{ji'a}, however, does not change truth values, so is not a case in point.

<.=A0 Not the Lojban plan,=20
>as
>originally written nor even as revised in the Book.

I can't say I know what those plans are. {po'o} is not
one of the many cmavo that I would banish from the language... :)>

Some place in the Book (well-buried so far as my quick search just now goes=
)=20
is the line -- going back to the first, 1959, edition of Loglan 1 -- about=
=20
making inferences as transparent as possible, bringing out the logical=20
structure of the statement, and so on. {po'o} doesn't do that but rather=20
misleads and muddles. Too bad it is not on your list; the ones that are=20
rarely have those peculiar properties, however useless they may be.

cowan:
<> But of course, the first case being non-unique is not just a discourse=20
> function but a logical and factual one and so belongs in the the=20
> truth-functional realms

It *can* belong there.=A0 But in this construction I judge we are dealing
with a rhetorical emphasis, quite unlike "Not only farmers are fishers." =
=3D=20
"Some non-farmers are fishers", where its function is clearly logical.>
Everyone else seems to be taking it as a factual, not merely a rhetorical=20
claim; what is your basis for the different view -- other than the use of=20
{po'o} in the translations?
Not that I am clear on what the "rhetorical use" of "only" is -- beyond=20
restricting the universe of discourse.









--part1_94.12dc8ba7.280e674f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 4/17/2001 8:50:52 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">la pycyn cusku di'e
<BR>
<BR>&gt;ro lo nelci be leva stizu cu du le mlatu
<BR>
<BR>Why the change in word order? Isn't that the same as
<BR>{le mlatu cu du ro lo nelci be le va stizu}?
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Force of habit: first semester logic dislike quantifiers in predicate=20
<BR>position.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.&gt;
<BR>Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part of =
the=20
<BR>language of logic? &nbsp;Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt;{me le mlatu} gets a bit fuzzy, though both might be true if th=
ere were
<BR>&gt;several cats and they all liked the chair,
<BR>
<BR>No! If there were more than one cat, at least {du} would not
<BR>be true! Each of the cats would not be =3D each of the likers.
<BR>Each cat would only equal one of the likers.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Sorry, I forgot that one of the changes that shouldn't have happened wa=
s the=20
<BR>rule about implicit quantifiers: we got it backwards from the standard.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt;So
<BR>&gt;noda poi na du le mlatu cu nelci leva stizu.
<BR>
<BR>Or more succintly: no nardu'o be le mlatu cu nelci le va stizu
<BR>
<BR>But that doesn't say that the cat does like it, which was part
<BR>of the original claim.&gt;
<BR>Actually the first is the same length and clearer. &nbsp;And, of course=
(here we=20
<BR>go on this one again) "only Ss are Ps" does not imply that even a singl=
e S is=20
<BR>P, only that nothing else is. &nbsp;If {po'o} adds the exisatential con=
dition, it=20
<BR>is triply misleading instead of only doubly.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I never really bought that UIs don't affect truth values. At least
<BR>some of them certainly do. In any case, all your objections to
<BR>{po'o} would also apply to {ji'a}.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>The ones that do, if there are any, are the same bastard creations as {=
po'o}.=20
<BR>&nbsp;{ji'a}, however, does not change truth values, so is not a case i=
n point.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;.=A0 Not the Lojban plan,=20
<BR>&gt;as
<BR>&gt;originally written nor even as revised in the Book.
<BR>
<BR>I can't say I know what those plans are. {po'o} is not
<BR>one of the many cmavo that I would banish from the language... :)&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Some place in the Book (well-buried so far as my quick search just now =
goes)=20
<BR>is the line -- going back to the first, 1959, edition of Loglan 1 -- ab=
out=20
<BR>making inferences as transparent as possible, bringing out the logical=
=20
<BR>structure of the statement, and so on. &nbsp;{po'o} doesn't do that but=
rather=20
<BR>misleads and muddles. &nbsp;Too bad it is not on your list; the ones th=
at are=20
<BR>rarely have those peculiar properties, however useless they may be.
<BR>
<BR>cowan:
<BR>&lt;&gt; But of course, the first case being non-unique is not just a d=
iscourse=20
<BR>&gt; function but a logical and factual one and so belongs in the the=20
<BR>&gt; truth-functional realms
<BR>
<BR>It *can* belong there.=A0 But in this construction I judge we are deali=
ng
<BR>with a rhetorical emphasis, quite unlike "Not only farmers are fishers.=
" =3D=20
<BR>"Some non-farmers are fishers", where its function is clearly logical.&=
gt;
<BR>Everyone else seems to be taking it as a factual, not merely a rhetoric=
al=20
<BR>claim; what is your basis for the different view -- other than the use =
of=20
<BR>{po'o} in the translations?
<BR>Not that I am clear on what the "rhetorical use" of "only" is -- beyond=
=20
<BR>restricting the universe of discourse.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_94.12dc8ba7.280e674f_boundary--