[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re: [jboske] The contradiction



de'i li 2002-11-08 ti'u li 09:08:00 la'o zoi. John Cowan .zoi cusku di'e

>Adam Raizen scripsit:
>
>> [A]ccording to CLL, (16.11, p.405-407) we can move the negation
>> boundary in (2) past the universally quantified term, and switch
>> the universally quantified term to an existentially quantified
>> term, thus:
>
>Ah.  I think that the answer is that DeMorgan's Laws apply only
>in the case of *unrestricted* quantification: to roda, but not to
>rodapoi/rolo/ro.  The passage of CLL that you mention seems to use only
>singular terms in the examples, though I have only taken a quick look.

Well, according to the section above, DeMorgan's laws can apply also in
the case of restricted quantification, (see, for example, ex. 11.10 and
11.11). I suppose you could say that DeMorgan's laws only apply when
you're sure that the quantified term is not empty, but I think that
that loses some important generality, and so I would prefer that ro
just be non-importing.

mu'o mi'e .adam.