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

*To*: Erik Rauch <rauch>*Subject*: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o*From*: Art Protin <protin@USL.COM>*Date*: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 10:30:00 EST*Reply-To*: protin@USL.COM*Sender*: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>

Richard Kennaway <jrk@SYS.UEA.AC.UK> comments: > This is prima facie logically problematic. P(a,b,c,d,zi'o) cannot > be taken to mean "there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e)", since this > statement does not express the positive relationship that people are > trying to get when zi'o-ing the destination place of klama. If a > relation like that which "klama" names is taken to be an atomic > concept, that either holds between a tuple of things -- including > a destination -- or does not, then zi'o makes no sense. While I think I agree with this as a whole, the only examples that come to mind are those where I did not accept the claim that the the place did not have a possible value. Unknowable values are not the same as non-existant values. All travel has a destination, regardless of anybody's inability to express it. The same is true of all the other places of klama. Detailing of any klama becomes intractable much faster than it becomes complete. Thus, an inherent nature of useful language are its facilities to omit distracting details. I accept "P(a,b,c,d,zi'o)" as "there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e)" provided that zi'o is always required to be stated, never implied. The construct "P(a,b,c,d,...)" says nothing about the existance or relevance of e unless the the relation P is such that e is guarenteed to exist, as is the case with klama. Even when e is guarenteed to exist, when e is unspecified nothing more is implied about it. The construct "not P(a,b,c,d,...)" says to me that there exists a value of e such that "not P(a,b,c,d,e)" is true. This is a much weaker claim than there is no e such that "P(a,b,c,d,e)" is true. The stronger claim is represented as "P(a,b,c,d,zi'o)" which is where this paragraph began. (Tell me again John why the loglan predicate "bluer-than" is impossible to use with negation.) thank you all, Arthur Protin Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com> STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.

- Prev by Date:
**TECH: more thoughts on zi'o** - Next by Date:
**Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o** - Prev by thread:
**TECH: more thoughts on zi'o** - Next by thread:
**Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o** - Index(es):