From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 08 19:28:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 9 Aug 2001 02:28:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 96918 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 02:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2001 02:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 02:28:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.39.18d8f96c (3958) for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39.18d8f96c.28a34f49@aol.com> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:28:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Whatever To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_39.18d8f96c.28a34f49_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_39.18d8f96c.28a34f49_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/8/2001 8:01:30 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >Nor are > >sentences after {ju} thereby tautologies. They act like tautolgies in > >conjunctions, to be sure -- but they equally act like contradictions in > >disjunctions. >=20 > Could you give an example? I don't understand what the things > that act like contradictions in disjunctions are. >=20 They are false. so the whole disjunctions truth value depends on the value= =20 of the other disjunct -- just as a tautology (or a true sentence, for that= =20 matter) throws the truth of a conjunction on the other conjunct. On the off chance that this is meant to mean something like "I hereby give= =20 you permission to take whatever you take" (and I am obviously not at all su= re=20 that is what either you or the sentence means) : {ro da poi se lebna do zo'= u=20 e'a do lebna da} tidying up takes us too deep into permission logic to mes= s=20 with at the moment. --part1_39.18d8f96c.28a34f49_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/8/2001 8:01:30 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>Nor are
>sentences after {ju} thereby tautologies.  They act like tauto= lgies in
>conjunctions, to be sure -- but they equally act like contradiction= s in
>disjunctions.

Could you give an example? I don't understand what the things
that act like contradictions in disjunctions are.

They are false.  so the whole disjunctions truth value depends on = the value=20
of the other disjunct -- just as a tautology (or a true sentence, for t= hat=20
matter) throws the truth of a conjunction on the other conjunct.

<How can we say, for example, what we want to understand by:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 e'a do lebna makau
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Permission! Whatever you take.>
On the off chance that this is meant to mean something like "I hereby g= ive=20
you permission to take whatever you take" (and I am obviously not at al= l sure=20
that is what either you or the sentence means) : {ro da poi se lebna do= zo'u=20
e'a do lebna da}  tidying up takes us too deep into permission log= ic to mess=20
with at the moment.




--part1_39.18d8f96c.28a34f49_boundary--