WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

1. Not even that, since his examination is largely irrelevant to the issue: all the doctors he needs may be none of the ones there are.
The claim that all the doctors might be dead and you still need one is about the opaque context generated (covertly in your usage) by {nitcu}: {mi viska lo mikce} won't be true if all the doctors are dead (doctor-corpses not counting as doctors for this case at least).
I suspect that the "just think about it" will not work generally: it does for someof the intensional cases — though not even for all of those.

2: arj's technique is essentially correct here. Look at them all and if none correspond then the {lo} claim is surely false. Since this is probably an analytic claim, thinking about it may be sufficient.

3: Yes, he screws up here: the run through is right but he should be counting hits, not misses. Admittedly, not fixed number of hits is the right one, but cases of no hits will make the whole false (and maybe cases of too few hits — precisely as vague as that seems). But I doubt that thinking about it will help here: Graustarkians are at least as likely a group of people as Saudis coonsidered conceptually but lo prenu are not Graustarkian. You have to check in the real world.

4: And the same to you (see examples). He is merely taking {lo broda} a seriously as you sometimes do, but being consistent about it.


> {mi nitcu lo mikce} — obviously true (in the right circumstances)
> Here, I take every {mikce} in the world, assign it to {xy.} and for eac=
> h
> one asks if {mi nitcu xy.} is true. If and only if there is no {xy.} fo=
> r
> which {mi nitcu xy.} is false, then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. No
> problem here.

1. But what you are describing is {mi nitcu ro mikce}.

In {mi nitcu lo mikce} you don't examine any doctor. All you
need to know is what a doctor is. Then, knowing what a doctor
is, you ask yourself, is that what I need? If the answer is yes,
then {mi nitcu lo mikce} is true. You don't have to examine any
doctors. As xod says, all the doctors may be dead and you may
still need one.

> {lo prenu cu tarci} — obviously false
> We are then looping through every {prenu}. There are some (actually all=
> )
> instances in which {xy. tarci} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu tarci} =
> is
> false. No problem here.

2:Again you are describing the procedure to check {ro prenu cu tarci}.
For {lo prenu cu tarci} what you need to know is what a prenu is.
Knowing what a prenu is, do you think it is (at least sometimes)
a tarci? If not, then the sentence is false.

> {lo prenu cu sadjo} — obviously true.
> We are again looping through every {prenu}. There are some instances in
> which {xy. sadjo} is false, therefore {lo prenu cu sadjo} is false. Whi=
> ch
> is patently wrong, but fits with how I understand XS-lo.

3:Again, you are describing {ro prenu cu sadjo}, which as you conclude
is false.

To check {lo prenu cu sadjo} you start from your knowledge of
what a prenu is. Then you ask yourself, is it (at least sometimes)
a sadjo? If yes then {lo prenu cu (su'oroi) sadjo} is true.

{lo prenu roroi fe'eroroi sadjo} is obviously false. People can be
Saudis, but people are not always and everywhere Saudis.

> So. What is it that I'm missing here.

4:You seem to be confusing lo with ro.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/