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

*To*: Erik Rauch <rauch>*Subject*: Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu*From*: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>*Date*: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:33:03 +0100*In-Reply-To*: (Your message of Wed, 13 Oct 93 13:16:42 A.)*Reply-To*: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>*Sender*: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>

Iain says: > Hang on! If an omitted sumti defaulted to {da}, then this sort > or reasoning might be relevant. But it doesn't, it defaults to {zo'e}, > whose quantification is indeterminate. "X is not blue" means > "There exists a Y such that X is not bluer than Y". Suppose I said > "X is not bluer than ko'a". If {ko'a} had been previously defined, > there would be no problem. If not, then I still see no reason to think > it's existentially quantified. And {zo'e} means whatever I want it > to mean. :-) Are you sure this is how negation works? I thought that "X is not blue" would mean "There is no X such that there is some Y such that X is bluer than Y". Or do you mean that "X is not blue" means "There exists a Y such that X is not bluer than Y" *if* (contrary to fact) _blanu_ is "x1 is bluer than x2"? (In which case I understand you & agree.) ---- And KO JBOBANPEHO

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu** - Next by Date:
**more on fat gismu** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu** - Next by thread:
**Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu** - Index(es):