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

Re: misc replies to and



&:
{lo nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju cu na fasnu} means
{da zou da nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju kei gie da na fasnu},
which is false, since {no da fasnu gie na fasnu}. The problem is that
statements like {xamgu gie nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju} will
necessarily be false, even if it would have been good if GW were president.
pc:

We can argue about the expansion (and about the relevance of &'s shift
from lojbab's _le_ to _lo_and whether a compound bridi tail can be called
a statement) but the argument does not go through however these issues are
decided.  The crux is whether _da nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju_
entails _da fasnu_.  The argument above overtly assumes that it does.
But, of course, this is circular, since the point of this argument is just
to prove that non-occurring events (or whatever -- pick your favorite
word) do not exist, the point just just assumed (well, the contrapositive,
and so equivalent, of it).  Any good arguments for the point directly?
There may be, but, since we have not clarified what _nu_ clauses refer to
at all, it is probably premature to come up with them.
pc>|83