From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 18 07:10:11 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 14:10:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 5019 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 14:10:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 14:10:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 14:10:09 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.c4.12dc5d5f (4254) for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:50 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 4/17/2001 11:58:59 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> > {ji'a}, however, does not change truth values, so is not a case in poi=
nt.
>=20
> So you don't see a problem in something like:
>=20
> 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."
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Yes, the sample sentence is strange -- but it is not false (assuming that {=
le=20
bolci cu go'i}is not false). {ji'a} is the wrong discursive to use at this=
=20
point; {sa'e} would be better or some other "namely rider." The "in additio=
n"=20
is the remark, not the thing mentioned in the remark: " the ball too" is=20
sloppy translating for "moreover the ball."
Having said that, I recognize that the conventions that are built into the=
=20
language are being violated all the time, that "usage is deciding" and=20
changing the language even during the freeze, which turns out, as a=20
consequence, to have been a someone misguided idea. Still, there is no har=
m=20
-- and possibly some good -- in trying to learn and use the language as it=
=20
was intended for a while before we go off and make something livable but=20
sloppy out of it.

<You can't say for example: "Only the cat likes that chair,
not even the cat likes it." That's contradictory.>

I say it frequently (well, things of that form, all my cats are in the=20
sandbox in the sky)
"only my wife likes olives and even she can't stand them" Even English is=
=20
occasionally a logical language, and even if it weren't, Lojban is.=20=20
Since Lojban has consistently refused to give existential import to=20
universally quantified terms (and it has repeatedly over nearly 50 years), =
it=20
is stuck with the situation that "only S are P" does not entail that some S=
=20
are P or even that there are some Ss or some Ps. In most cases, you can ge=
t=20
a Gricean implicature to that effect, but that is cancellable by context --=
=20
including factual additions.=20=20
"Only the brave deserve the fair" =3D "None but the brave deserve the fair"=
=3D=20
"No one that is not brave deserves the fair" and so on, each step making it=
=20
clearer that no commitment is made to there being either a brave person or =
a=20
person who deserves the fair.

<><Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.>
>Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part of the
>language of logic?=A0 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.>
Here is a "normal" usage where it precisely is needed and in its most corre=
ct=20
form. How is it misused? As another "is"?=20

<, 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".>

What is it a case of, then? Surely the fact that the subject is singular=20
does not alter the logic so completely -- especially if it can take the sam=
e=20
quantifier expression as the general case.


--part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_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 11:58:59 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&gt; &nbsp;{ji'a}, howeve=
r, does not change truth values, so is not a case in point.
<BR>
<BR>So you don't see a problem in something like:
<BR>
<BR>pa da nenri le tanxe i le bolci ji'a cu go'i
<BR>"Exactly one thing is in the box, the ball too is in the box."
<BR>
<BR>There is nothing strange about that sentence if we remove {ji'a},
<BR>but adding it makes it very weird. In that sense I think it affects
<BR>truth values. And {po'o} is much like it in my mind, the
<BR>"no additional" that it contains is just like the "in addition to"
<BR>that {ji'a} contains. They both affect the truth value in the same
<BR>sense, if they affect it at all.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>Yes, the sample sentence is strange -- but it is not false (assuming th=
at {le=20
<BR>bolci cu go'i}is not false). &nbsp;{ji'a} is the wrong discursive to us=
e at this=20
<BR>point; {sa'e} would be better or some other "namely rider." The "in add=
ition"=20
<BR>is the remark, not the thing mentioned in the remark: " the ball too" i=
s=20
<BR>sloppy translating for "moreover the ball."
<BR>Having said that, I recognize that the conventions that are built into =
the=20
<BR>language are being violated all the time, that "usage is deciding" and=
=20
<BR>changing the language even during the freeze, which turns out, as a=20
<BR>consequence, to have been a someone misguided idea. &nbsp;Still, there =
is no harm=20
<BR>-- and possibly some good -- in trying to learn and use the language as=
it=20
<BR>was intended for a while before we go off and make something livable bu=
t=20
<BR>sloppy out of it.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;You can't say for example: "Only the cat likes that chair,
<BR>not even the cat likes it." That's contradictory.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I say it frequently (well, things of that form, all my cats are in the=
=20
<BR>sandbox in the sky)
<BR>"only my wife likes olives and even she can't stand them" &nbsp;Even En=
glish is=20
<BR>occasionally a logical language, and even if it weren't, Lojban is. &nb=
sp;
<BR>Since Lojban has consistently refused to give existential import to=20
<BR>universally quantified terms (and it has repeatedly over nearly 50 year=
s), it=20
<BR>is stuck with the situation that "only S are P" does not entail that so=
me S=20
<BR>are P or even that there are some Ss or some Ps. &nbsp;In most cases, y=
ou can get=20
<BR>a Gricean implicature to that effect, but that is cancellable by contex=
t --=20
<BR>including factual additions. &nbsp;
<BR>"Only the brave deserve the fair" =3D "None but the brave deserve the f=
air" =3D=20
<BR>"No one that is not brave deserves the fair" and so on, each step makin=
g it=20
<BR>clearer that no commitment is made to there being either a brave person=
or a=20
<BR>person who deserves the fair.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt;&lt;Avoiding {du} is always good Lojban practice, though.&gt;
<BR>&gt;Why would"the logical language" want to do away with a central part=
of the
<BR>&gt;language of logic?=A0 Neither {mintu} nor {me} are as well defined.
<BR>
<BR>I don't know, it is never needed in normal usage, and almost
<BR>every time when it is used, it is misused.&gt;
<BR>Here is a "normal" usage where it precisely is needed and in its most c=
orrect=20
<BR>form. &nbsp;How is it misused? &nbsp;As another "is"?=20
<BR>
<BR>&lt;, but "only the cat likes that chair" does imply
<BR>that the cat likes that chair. It is not just a case of
<BR>"only Ss are Ps".&gt;
<BR>
<BR>What is it a case of, then? &nbsp;Surely the fact that the subject is s=
ingular=20
<BR>does not alter the logic so completely -- especially if it can take the=
same=20
<BR>quantifier expression as the general case.
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_c4.12dc5d5f.280efa2e_boundary--