From pycyn@aol.com Tue Apr 17 20:43:17 2001 Return-Path: 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 ; 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. 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. 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 In a message dated 4/17/2001 8:50:52 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:



la pycyn cusku di'e

>ro lo nelci be leva stizu cu du le mlatu

Why the change in word order? Isn't that the same as
{le mlatu cu du ro lo nelci be le va stizu}?




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 th= ere 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 wa= s the=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 singl= e S is=20
P, only that nothing else is.  If {po'o} adds the exisatential con= dition, it=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 i= n 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 -- ab= out=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 th= at 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 d= iscourse=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 deali= ng
with a rhetorical emphasis, quite unlike "Not only farmers are fishers.= " =3D=20
"Some non-farmers are fishers", where its function is clearly logical.&= gt;
Everyone else seems to be taking it as a factual, not merely a rhetoric= al=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--