From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Apr 17 21:40:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 5115 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.23) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 04:40:48 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:40:48 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.21 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:40:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.21] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:40:47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2001 04:40:48.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD08A5D0:01C0C7C1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > >Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part of the >language of logic? Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined. I don't know, it is never needed in normal usage, and almost every time when it is used, it is misused. ><>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. You're right! The second just feels more succint because it has less words and a less complex structure. >And, of course (here we >go on this one again) "only Ss are Ps" does not imply that even a single S >is >P, only that nothing else is. Of course, but "only the cat likes that chair" does imply that the cat likes that chair. It is not just a case of "only Ss are Ps". You can't say for example: "Only the cat likes that chair, not even the cat likes it." That's contradictory. >If {po'o} adds the exisatential condition, it >is triply misleading instead of only doubly. If you remove the existential condition from "only the cat likes that chair" you are not giving a faithful translation. > {ji'a}, however, does not change truth values, so is not a case in point. So you don't see a problem in something like: pa da nenri le tanxe i le bolci ji'a cu go'i "Exactly one thing is in the box, the ball too is in the box." There is nothing strange about that sentence if we remove {ji'a}, but adding it makes it very weird. In that sense I think it affects truth values. And {po'o} is much like it in my mind, the "no additional" that it contains is just like the "in addition to" that {ji'a} contains. They both affect the truth value in the same sense, if they affect it at all. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.