[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/6/2002 8:50:34 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << >I though you had -- given what you have said the last few times -- gone >> Actually, I haven't changed either. But I have tried a few variations for the sake of getting some recognition out of nonlogicians. Failing that, I stick to where I started. << >Because {ro broda cu brode} is not {naku su'o broda naku brode} for >importing >{ro} and {su'o}. > >> >And so? When do you want to say this and why? Sometimes we want to transform an _expression_ with one quantifier in terms of the other for greater clarity, for example >> So, presumably, you want to go from {naku su'o broda naku brode} -- however you got to that -- to {ro broda cu brode}. I suppose that what you really have -- since this is the natural language _expression_ that the logical formulary attempts to cover -- is {naku me'iro broda cu brode}, from which {ro broda cu brode} follows directly. But, if you really have got the complicated thing you claim, then, by a somewhat more convoluted process, it follows, too. As does the reverse: {ro} to {naku su'o naku}. << >Because {ro broda cu brode} is not {naku su'o broda naku brode} for >importing >{ro} and {su'o}. > >> ><< >ro broda cu brode = ge su'o de broda gi ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da >brode >no broda cu brode = no da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode >su'o broda cu brode = su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode >me'iro broda cu brode = ge su'o de broda gi me'iro da zo'u ganai da broda >gi >da brode > >> >No, since I would take (history again) all the broda forms as primitive and >the ones in terms of {da} as short for {Q zasti zo'u ... zy ...}. I really don't see what you mean here. >> That I take the restricted quantifiers as primitive and define the others in terms of them (with some vacuous broda, like {zasti}). I expect that, if I worked it through, I would end up with something like these, though the {me'iro} looks unduly complex, just at a glance. And, now that I look at it, why would I have a non-importing {no} in there with an importing {me'iro}. I'll check these out, I think. It doesn't look like you see what I am stuck with. Note, by the way, that there is no reason here to think that the {ro} you use is non-importing (and a good deal of reason to think it is importing, since it is presumably borrowed from modern logic). << >Lojban is >trying to be a human language, not a logical formulary, after all. Interesting comment coming from you. >> I am not sure why it is suddenly interesting, since it is what I have been saying for 25 years now. Modern logic got away from natural language usage and I have been trying to insure that Loglan/Lojban does not follow it in this. |
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hidden.email>
- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 01:35:51 +0000
- Subject: Re: [jboske] McCawley on existential import
- To: jboske@yahoogroups.com
la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > > The "free floating" {da} is {su'o da}. I take {su'o} to be importing, of > > course. It is {ro} > > that I take to be non-importing. > >> >I though you had -- given what you have said the last few times -- gone >over >wholly to non-importing quantifiers. No, I have always stuck to (A-E-O+I+), since I started learning Lojban in 1994. It is you who has gone through different variations. ><< >Because {ro broda cu brode} is not {naku su'o broda naku brode} for >importing >{ro} and {su'o}. > >> >And so? When do you want to say this and why? Sometimes we want to transform an expression with one quantifier in terms of the other for greater clarity, for example. ><< >ro broda cu brode = ge su'o de broda gi ro da zo'u ganai da broda gi da >brode >no broda cu brode = no da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode >su'o broda cu brode = su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode >me'iro broda cu brode = ge su'o de broda gi me'iro da zo'u ganai da broda >gi >da brode > >> >No, since I would take (history again) all the broda forms as primitive and >the ones in terms of {da} as short for {Q zasti zo'u ... zy ...}. I really don't see what you mean here. >Lojban is >trying to be a human language, not a logical formulary, after all. Interesting comment coming from you. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: jboske-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---