From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 20 14:04:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 21:04:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 18219 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 21:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 21:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r14.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.68) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 21:04:53 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id r.b8.146f7f39 (4340) for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:04:39 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: "not only" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b8.146f7f39.2811fe67_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_b8.146f7f39.2811fe67_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit to aulun Lord, how old are you (not really prying)? I'm mid-sixty and my *teachers* had Mengenlehre (often from text that called it that, to be sure) in their undergraduate courses. <. So maybe I understand your point now: 1) (Speaking of humans) "all pregnants are females (women)" (the set of pregnants is contained in the set of females) 2) "only females are pregnant" (the set of females is partly included in the set of pregnants whose members are all females)> The point is that 1 and 2 are exactly the same: the set of pregnants is a subset of the set of females (possibly an empty subset). Bingo! (That is exactly correct). That is a third way of saying exactly the same thing. Guilty to the following extent. Bringing in all those details, which have nothing to do -- apparently -- with the case, leads to a set of expectations that they are going to turn up in the rest of the story somehow. That*is* the implicature that leads one to want to say that at least one of those nuns is pregnant and even that at least one of the monks is in the other case. The point, however, is that it is the details, not the logical situation that gets us there -- the pregnant nun is not entailed by the claim. --part1_b8.146f7f39.2811fe67_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit to aulun

Lord, how old are you (not really prying)?  I'm mid-sixty and my *teachers*
had Mengenlehre (often from text that called it that, to be sure) in their
undergraduate courses.

<. So maybe I understand your point now:
1) (Speaking of humans) "all pregnants are females (women)" (the set of
pregnants is contained in the set of females)
2) "only females are pregnant" (the set of females is partly included in the
set of pregnants whose members are all females)>

The point is that 1 and 2 are exactly the same: the set of pregnants is a
subset of the set of females (possibly an empty subset).  

<This doesn't entail that there is any woman pregnant nor that there actually
is any woman or any pregnant at all.>
Bingo! (That is exactly correct).

<Shouldn't we put it as: "*if* there are any pregnants, they are women">
That is a third way of saying exactly the same thing.

<Yet, I still think that your Carmel example is misleading, because you're
giving specific information on those women (being
inhabitants of that named convent), thus somehow pretending you're talking of
*real existing* women living there and being
pregnant.>
Guilty to the following extent.  Bringing in all those details, which have
nothing to do -- apparently -- with the case, leads to a set of expectations
that they are going to turn up in the rest of the story somehow.  That*is*
the implicature that leads one to want to say that at least one of those nuns
is pregnant and even that at least one of the monks is in the other case.  
The point, however, is that it is the details, not the logical situation that
gets us there -- the pregnant nun is not entailed by the claim. --part1_b8.146f7f39.2811fe67_boundary--