[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 03:22:29AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
[...]
> > > If it's understood that the discussion universe does NOT contain unicorns,
> > > this is a meaningless statement
> >
> > Why give up and call it meaningless when we can use our formal rules
> > to make it mean something:
> >
> > ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
> > naku naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi ==
> > naku su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi
> >
> > All we're saying is that there aren't any unicorns which aren't
> > white. Which is *certainly* meaningful
>
> As long as {quantifier pavyseljirna cu blabi} has the same truth
> value regardless of the quantifier (in worlds with no unicorns),
> I don't see why xod/me/John shouldn't let you decide whether that
> value is True or False.
su'o would be false, ro would be true, naku ro would be false...
Xod said something on irc to the effect of thinking that it isn't
important, for the reasons he gave in 'mu', but that he'd accept
nonimporting if it fixes the inconsistency for the naku rules.
I think A-E-I+O+ is what we need for this, to keep the system
consistent. I agree with you and xod, that, as Nick was suggesting,
we really can ignore this as in normal conversation it's really a
"na'i" to talk about things which don't exist, despite being logically
true. I dunno what John thinks about this though, as I think he
and PC were pulling for A+E-I+O-.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binAeYSA633xA.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped