WikiDiscuss

pc:
> B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with
> {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes
> through.

And species always exist, don't they?

> C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like
> "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage
> seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do
> you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL,
> as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

We need consider naku only. If the term is not quantified, it can pass
through naku unchanged. If quantified, the quantifier gets inverted.

> E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it
> loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

Not at all. {naku ro lo broda} = {su'o lo broda naku},
{ro lo broda naku} = {naku su'o lo broda} and
{lo broda naku} = {naku lo broda}, as with any other unquantified term.

> (But you
> really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never
> see why.)

I don't think we disagree about the interaction of negation and
quantifiers, do we?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail