[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 07/09/2012 03:21:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Hence it behaves like a constant. There are (rightly, IMO) no constants in Xorban, but their crucial logical property is that when there is only one X, some X is Y iff every X is Y; everything true of some X is true of every X.I tried something like that yesterday and it doesn't work formally: Assume def: li Ri Pi<=> jo si Ri Pi ri Ri Pi<=> jo ri Ri Pi si Ri Pi
The "everything true of some X is true of every X" is a conventional implicature, which in logical terms means it's outside the scope of any illocutionary. E.g. "ca li bcdi fghi" = "je jo si bcdi fghi ri bcdi fghica sibcdi fghi"
I think you need: li Ri Pi<=> je jo si Ri Pi ri Ri Pi jo si Pi Ri ri Pi Ri i.e. there's only one thing that Ri, and it's the only thing that Pi.
How come it's the only thing that Pi?
I don't think "la bcda fgha" implies "sa bcda fgha" much less "ra bcda fgha", though either of the latter does imply "la bcda fgha".Not in the same context. You can only move from "sa bcda fgha" or "ra bcda fgha" to "la bcda fgha" by changing the universe of discourse to one where bcda (and to some extent fgha as well) is no longer dividuated, which is typically not the case in universes where it makes sense to use s- or r-. So it's not a logical implication that can take us from s-/r- to l- unless we are already in l-'s territory, in which case you wouldn't be using s-/r- in the first place.
But Mike was saying you can't go from lV to rV/sV, and I think that lV does entail both sV and rV. "la ma xrxe rgntna, ra ma xrxe rgntna, sa ma xrxe rgntna" (is Argentinian) are each true of the same construal of the same world. --And.