From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Apr 18 21:26:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 04:26:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 81034 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 04:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 04:26:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.121) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 04:26:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:26:15 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.43 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 04:26:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.43] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 04:26:15 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2001 04:26:15.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF92EF30:01C0C888] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >likes olives and even she doesn't like them", there is a flat >contradiction for me, and the phrase loses all its humour.> >Actually, I think it is funnier, largely because it cuts across the persons >*expectations*. It doesn't work for me, neither in English nor the corresponding Spanish. >{po'o} is appropriate only if there is no other relevant olive >liker. Just like in {le mi speni ku ji'a nelci lo'e rasygrute}, >{ji'a} would be appropriate only if there is some other relevant >olive liker.> >Note the difference even you make between {po'o} requiring that my wife >like >olives (as you say) and {ji'a} being inappropriate when there are no other >olive likers. No, that's not a difference I made. I pointed out the full parallel: Both require that the wife like olives, and each is inappropriate when there are/aren't other relevant likers. >So, we agree that we need existential import to make the inference that the >subject of ^only^ actually has the property and we agree that the universal >taken alone does not have that import. Yes. >Hence it does not entail that some S >is P. No, "only Ss are P" by itself does not entail "some S is P", you need that there be Ss for the entailment, I agree. On the other hand, for any given a, "only a is P" does entail "a is P". >Why the argument then? I don't know. We don't seem to agree about the implications of "only the cat likes that chair". Since "the cat" necessarily must have a referent, there is a valid entailment as I understand it. >Ah yes, you don't believe the original point >that "only S is P" is "All P is S" Yes, I do believe it, I never disputed it when S stands for a general term. >and the fact that you have cats helps not >at all, But I don't have cats, I rather dislike them! I do love olives though. >since it is not proven that there are chair likers -- though it is >implicated. If you claim that {le mlatu du ro nelci be le va stizu}, you are claiming that there is at least one chair liker. You'd have to go back to {me le mlatu} to remove that implication. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.