WikiDiscuss

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 01:15:26AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >>>>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru
> >>>>
> >>>>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi)
> >>>
> >>>mi pilno lu te minde li'u
> >>
> >>Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the
> >>action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis
> >>for authority?
> >
> >Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the
> >authority to carry it out.
>
> Are you saying that lo te minde cu te catni? If so, then the
> edited example is okay.

In this case, sure.

> >>I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are
> >>constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be
> >>impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal
> >>claims).
> >
> >You're saying, then, that:
> >
> >ro da limna
> >
> >is a true statement, because quantified claims are not
> >constrained by the main selbri. Ummmm...
>
> On the contrary, I am saying that it is a *false* statement. You
> are quantifying over all the entities in the universe,
> unrestricted. Since there will always be non-swimming entities
> (such as myself, or that book on my table), such a universal claim
> will be false.

Right.

> Unless you want to invoke the concept of "universe of discourse",
> but this is dubious, since AFAIK we don't have any explicit way of
> picking out a universe of discourse.

True.

> >It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that
> >makes quantified claims true or untrue
>
> I don't understand this at all.

The quantification specifies a number of things; the truth/false of
the statement is determined by whether the claim applies to that
number of things.

> >(from a given semantic perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah
> >blah).
>
> I do not agree that the way quantification works is outside the
> BPFK scope.

It's not, but the semantics of the resulting sentence (i.e. whether
the sentence is true or false) is.

OK, getting back to the problem.

so'a da cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda

The question is, to me, is there any difference between the above
and:

so'a da poi cusku cu cusku fi lo ri cevni ku'u lo lijda

IMO, the first version implies the second one. But I'm not sure.
Nor do I know how to decide.

-Robin