Re: category errors in sumti

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

>> >Easy. I could easily create a lujvo or fu`ivla to do the job,
>> >but I don't need to: {nanmu} and {ninmu} immediately spring
>> >to mind. x1 of nanmu must be male.
>>
>> In order to be TRUE, yes.  In order to make sense, not necessarily.
>> The question was whether it was possible for a selbri to have such a
>> restricted category of sumti. It is possible to do so, but not all
> propositions
>> are true.

pe'i it depends on the infamous le/lo question.  To use the examples from
the refgram:

le nanmu cu ninmu

may be true or false, depending on who or what you have in mind;

lo nanmu cu ninmu

is described in the refgram is "false", but there seems to be an
implication that it is ill-formed, and hence meaningless, rather than
false.  If this is the case, would the same apply to the following:

lo nanmu cu ckaji lo'i ka ninmu

(o'acu'izo'o assuming I haven't mangled Lojban grammar yet again)?  If so,
anything which is semantically ill-formed would therefore be grammatically
ill-formed, and therefore meaningless, rather than true or false.

ru'a

lo nanmu pu ckaji lo'i ka ninmu

should be well-formed, it's truth-value depending on factors like whether
the person concerned has had a sex-change operation.

ta'o what was that Indian logical system which classified propostions into
true, false, meaningless or any combination of the three?


Robin Turner

Bilkent Universitesi,
IDMYO,
Ankara,
Turkey.

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8309>