[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Wait a minute, I'm now even more lost than usual
>
> Lots of logic and semantics textbooks (including my own, as I check)
> have {ro} non-importing
Even in the sense that "Ax" doesn't entail "Ex" (a nonempty universe?
My own experience (almost all with linguistics-oriented logic) is
that the issue doesn't get discussed.
> It has been asserted that non-importing {ro} is the current logic
> mainstream
>
> John and pc want it importing
>
> Jorge offers a solomontean solution, but would basically prefer it
> non-importing?
>
> I agree with msg 17041. In particular, I repudiate, now and forever,
> any notion of continuity between Loglan and Lojban, and what Lojban is
> shall only be what we Lojbanists decide, not what the Loglanists
> thought
>
> I don't have a "Jorge is Usually Right" dictum, but a "John is Usually
> Right dictum." But I can and do disagree with him, on vo'a, and now on
> this
>
> Jordan is correct in his latest, that John's 0/0 argument is bogus
>
> Moreover, I have no earthly idea why 99ce'i being importing should
> imply that ro is importing. ro is not 100%, and ro is not *just* a
> fractional quantifier. ro is the universal quantifier. (Whether or not
> 99ce'i means 99ce'i lo su'o is an argument for another day.) Just
> becaue canonical fractional quantifiers may or may not be importing,
> does not mean {ro} need be
What is the difference between 100% and ro?
I thought I might have achieved a nice solution, but I'll pick up
on that in other replies.
> As a meta point, this is like what I said in the {coi xirma doi xirma}
> Wiki page. When we have a choice in Lojban, we can choose what is more
> elegant and conforming to other parts of the grammar, or what is more
> useful. I don't think making {ro} behave just like {99ce'i} is more
> useful, and I now make usefulness my criterion. (This may be yet
> another fliparound towards naturalism.)
>
> And, if you agree with everything Jordan said in 17040 (where he
> adamantly supports non-importing), then how is that consistent with you
> going Solomontean? I'm utterly confused about what the arguments are
Well, I went solomontean because John said Nay, and then changed tack
yet again when xod said Nay.
As always, I think my current position is the right one (it's in my
nature to believe my own beliefs and then discard them at the drop
of a hat), but almost all positions proposed in this thread are ones
that I think are acceptable. That said, when some of our Top Lojbanists
disagree, it might be worthwhile trying to get to the bottom of the
disagreement to see whether there is some deeper picture they can
all agree on.
> xod on 17044 is right, and the logic references I've seen say pretty
> much the same. In 17059, John is misconstruing him: "66% of unicorns
> are male" is also valid. The Existential Fallacy view is that anything
> you say about non-existents is trivially true --- and falsity needs
> counterexamples to exist. That's my response to 17066, too
>
> Inasmuch as I understand what's currently going on, I vote Jordan
With the proviso that I don't want to subvert compromise, I vote
John, but maintain that this is fully compatible with usage and
general intuition of the antiimportists.
--And.