[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote: > xod: > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > To summarize the entire discussion so far: > > > "all of" is certainly importing even if only by irresistible > > > implicature > > > But "ro" does not mean "all of"; it expresses a cardinal number, > > > the number of broda that there are. If there are 0 broda, then > > > ro = 0. Hence it is nonimporting > > > > > > The model of quantification favoured by John and xod is valid, > > > but ro is not the lexical means for implementing it. (I haven't > > > grouped pc in with John and xod, because I never understood > > > his reasons for his position -- he seemed to give no reason > > > but "that's how it is in proper logic".) > > > > > > So, John and xod. Are you going to acquiesce?????????? > > > Everybody else has already voted jordo > > > > What was said here that contradicts what I wrote in "mu"? > > Would you agree that "ro pavyseljirna cu broda" is no more > meaningless than "no pavyseljirna cu broda", in a universe with > no unicorns in it? In a discussion universe with no unicorns in it, both statements are equally meaningless. > Adam has tried to give some examples where he thinks ro is meaningful -- > basically cases when you don't know whether or not there are any > unicorns (or whatever). If we don't know whether there are any unicorns in the real universe, but we are discussing them as possibly existing, then they do exist in our discussion universe. Once we realize that our discussion universe is distinct from the real universe, the contradictions that arise from discussing nonexistent phenomena vanish. > But I'll take it you're not opposed. As long as we don't exceed the parameters of "mu", then I'm on board. -- "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." -- Edward Abbey