WikiDiscuss

G>Yes; but would not occur — as such — in this context. Note that I deliberately did not use {lo broda} here, but something very close to a logical proper name. {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts. You cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally true)

H> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode. (notice some of these problems arise with proper names as well, even without splitting the referent into parts).

I> I am sorry, I could have sworn you just said that {ro broda naku brode} was the same as {ro broda cu na'e brode}, for which these moves do not work. Or are you taking {na'e} as {naku} rather than the other way. As noted just above, negation does not go through {lo broda} at all validly and fails for some names as well. That is, the claim about unquantified terms is false here. And unexplained in your system (both how it works and why you would want it).

J> See above.
..
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
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.

G>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).

H>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.

I>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.)

J>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