In researching a question on the mailing list, I came acros= s discussions of the question of whether {ro} has "existential import" -- w= hich is to say, does a true proposition {ro broda cu brode} imply that {su'= o broda cu brode} is also true? CLL 16.8 says:

"Lojban univer= sal claims always imply the corresponding existential claims as well."
<= /blockquote>
Which is to say, {ro} has existential import. This is the p= osition of classic/Aristotelian logic, but not modern logic.

It was been pointed out that the documentation of negation = boundaries is not consistent with this interpretation of ro. Take these exa= mples from CLL 16.11, which are said to be equivalent:
{naku = roda poi verba cu klama su'ode poi ckule} (16.11.7)
<= blockquote style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
{su'oda poi verba ku'o naku klama su'ode poi ckule} (16.11.4, {ku= 'o}-corrected per errata)

Now let's simplify the examples, replacing the students wit= h unicorns -- there's a tradition of talking about unicorns when considerin= g this question:

{naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} =3D=3D {su'o pavyseljirna naku c= u blabi}

Given that {ro} has import, and assuming for the sake of ar= gument that the universe has no unicorns to quantify, {ro pavyseljirna cu b= labi} is false, and therefore, {naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} is true.
=

However, {su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi} is false, since = there are no unicorns to predicate with {blabi}, affirmatively or negativel= y. The truth value of the proposition has changed despite the assurance tha= t moving the negation boundary and "inverting" the quantifiers accordingly = is supposed to preserve the meaning. Some have argued that this shows a vio= lation of De Morgan's laws.

The anomaly does not occur if {ro} is not held to import. I= n that case, {ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} is true, {naku ro pavyseljirna cu b= labi} is false, and {su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi} is also false.

This question was discussed extensively from 2002-2003, whi= ch is to say, during the BPFK's formative period. There seems to have been = near-consensus that {ro} should not be= held to import, but there were also emphatic dissents from John Cowan and = pc.

I saw indications of an expectation that BPFK would ultimat= ely decide the question, but I have been unable to find a record that the q= uestion was discussed or that a decision was taken.The BPFK section on "Inexact= Numbers" includes a link in the "Issues" section to the 2003 discussio= n, but otherwise -- as far as I can discern -- takes no clear position.
=

Can anyone show me where and how this problem was resol= ved? Failing that, would anyone care to take this up and once and for all s= ettle the matter?

mi'e la mukti mu'o