@agentydragon This can resolve YES

@jks Could you send a source?

@Bayesian

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/05/07/legislative-leaders-condemn-salt/

“a statewide ban on pride and other ‘political’ flags in schools and on government property took effect Wednesday”

I can provide more if you prefer.

Two logical readings here...

1. Existential (∃):

∃ r [PartOfUSA(r) ∧ Illegal(display_flag, r)]

  “There is at least one jurisdiction in the U.S. where it’s illegal.”

2. Universal (∀):

∀ r [PartOfUSA(r) ⇒ Illegal(display_flag, r)]

  “No matter which part of the U.S. you’re in, it’s illegal.”

I'm ESL, but isn't the everyday reading taken universally?

My reading is the first you listed, but it is reasonable to interpret it as the second.

We discussed this about a month ago assuming the existence definition:

https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/what-will-happen-during-trumps-seco#qaprcs58de

@jks That's fair!

Not the most informative question, since a law in a random 100 residents village is enough to trigger a YES resolution. That said, given the comment section history, I agree that this should resolve YES.

i agree to the former interpretation. that's wild

@Bayesian https://yle.fi/a/74-20152664

@dgga nice catch

@AustenRichardson know something we don't? The previous example of "no más" was already rejected

@Marnix This resolves YES — Elise Stefanik's nomination was withdrawn in March

@TheAllMemeingEye @Bayesian this can resolve YES. The Atlantic quoted Trump as saying "no más" in an interview. Neither Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com have a relevant entry for "mas", "más", "no mas", or "no más", so I think this qualifies as not loaned into English.

“You know at some point, they give up,” he said, referring to media owners generally and—we suspected—Bezos specifically. “At some point they say, No más, no más.” He laughed quietly.

https://archive.is/ZijUt

@jcb nice try, afaik "más" is not a loanword or cognate, but "no" definitely is a cognate. It's nonetheless very close and arguably does still make it more likely he'll do it at some point.

@TheAllMemeingEye It's not clear to me that the "no cognates/loanwords" here means "any word that has an English cognate doesn't count", as opposed to "it doesn't count if Trump is speaking English and just happens to use loanwords/cognates that also exist in other languages".

If no cognates at all count, then many, many words in other languages are ruled out, including "más", which does have cognates in English. English "much" and Spanish "más" come from a common Proto-Indo-European root "*meg-" meaning "great".

Since "cognates" just means words that share an etymological origin, and since almost all European languages are descended from a common ancestor (I mean - all languages full stop probably are, but the exact connections aren't as well established), it's pretty broad.

One example I like is that German "hund" and latin "canis" (both meaning "dog") are cognates :p.

They share an origin, some c's turned into h's in one branch of Indo-European languages, vowels don't matter, word endings don't matter, and look at that n! They both have one. Basically the same word, I'm sure you'll agree.

@chrisjbillington my apologies for any misunderstanding. In this case, the "in or from English" was intended to cover both using words while talking in English that are cognates to foreign words and using words while talking in a foreign language that are cognates to English words.

However, as you correctly point out, I appear to have made a grave mistake by misunderstanding the definition of cognate. Based on how the word was used back during my secondary school Spanish classes, I had gathered that cognate meant "word in a foreign language that is so similar that it can be unmistakeably recognised and translated even without any specific knowledge of the language" with key examples being technología, familia, teléfono, música, historia, problema, mi etc. Is there a different term than cognate that better encapsulates this meaning?

@TheAllMemeingEye not that I know of, but I think you've made yourself pretty clear in your comment. Guess you could say "obvious cognate" if you want to squish it into the answer text. I suspect most would understand your intended meaning anyway if they didn't go looking for technical definitions.

@chrisjbillington thanks 👍

@Bayesian could the word "obvious" be inserted before the word "cognates" in my added option to make it more clear please?

@KJW_01294 Isn't this resolver?

@BodeyBaker market creator has to resolve, not me

@KJW_01294 I can't tell if that means this is a good price, or if their idea of crippled is extreme enough it won't likely happen (like it has to be closed)

@Marnix @Bayesian Resolves to YES? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/26/trump-administration-child-deportation

@AnonUser Are you sure? I may be misreading, but this sounds voluntary in the article, with the administration acknowledging that she remains a citizen and can return:

>According to Mack, when VML’s father briefly spoke to Villela, he could hear her and the children crying. During that time, according to a court document, he reminded her that their daughter was a US citizen “and could not be deported”.

However, prosecutors said Villela, who has legal custody, told Ice that she wanted to retain custody of the girl and have her go with her to Honduras. They said the man claiming to be VML’s father had not presented himself to Ice despite requests to do so.

“It is therefore in VML’s best interest that she remain in the lawful custody of her mother,” Trump administration officials said in a filing on Friday. “Further, VML is not at risk of irreparable harm because she is a US citizen.” VML is not prohibited from entering the US, prosecutors added.

@Frogswap (I might also be trusting the current admin's statements too much here)

i’m not following the situation closely. Should the option be unresolved?

@Frogswap I took a look at a couple documents afterwards, but I'm still not sure. The order that is the basis for the article ends "In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process, IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16, 2025". But I think it's mostly the technicality that is still in question; it doesn't seem plausible that the US did not perform the spirit of a deportation on a US citizen. They will probably argue that it was a voluntary departure, but as I understand it they illegally detained her to get to that point.

I'm personally fine with leaving it resolved unless anything develops.