[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
> Even if you don't agree about the details of this, to see how > DeMorgan works with fractions it is better to write them as: > > pisu'o loi broda = su'o lu'o su'o broda No. pisu'o loi [ro] broda == pisu'o lu'o ro broda
Ok, I can see we will never agree about that. Just use: pisu'o loi borda = "some fraction of all broda"
> piro loi broda = su'o lu'o ro broda = ro lu'o ro broda No. piro loi [ro] broda == piro lu'o ro broda. You can't get rid of the "pi". lu'o still takes one.
Then use: piro loi broda = "the whole of all broda" (the biggest fraction, but not every fraction.)
Just think of this normally for a second. If it is not the case that some of it brodas, then it must be the case that all of it does not broda.
It must be the case that every one of the possible fractions
does not broda, not just the bisggest fraction, which is a
stronger statement.
{naku pisu'o} does entail {piro naku}, but not the other
way around.
If it is not the case that all of it does not broda, then some of it must broda.
No. If it is not the case that I don't eat the whole pie it does not just follow that I eat some of it. It follows that I eat the whole of it. Conversely: That the whole pie is such that I don't eat it all does not mean that there is no fraction that I eat.
I think DeMorgan works exactly as expected here.
But it doesn't. You are confusing the biggest fraction = the whole, one particular fraction, with all fractions. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_stopmorespam_3mf