wrote: > I was a little confused by something in the recent discussion on searching. > > What is the difference between (pardon the theistic bent) {da cevni}, {lo > cevni ku zasti}, and {da poi cevni cu zasti}. > > I hope I'm not opening too big of a can of worms here. > > -- > mu'o mi'e .arpis. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --047d7b6d8102b6506e04d2fd0630 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In my understanding:

{da cevni} says "There is a divinity in= the universe of discourse". It says nothing about whether a god actua= lly exists.

{lo cevni ku zasti} is something like "something u= nspecified which is a god exists [to someone unspecified in some unspecifie= d metaphysics]". This probably means {lo cevni ku zasti fi zu'i}, = which means "something unspecified which is a god exists in the usual = metaphysics" which was used in that discussion to mean "...actual= ly exists in reality".

{da poi cevni cu zasti} is "there exists x in the universe of dis= course and which is a god, such that x exists". The same qualification= about fi zu'i etc. applies here.

The point is= that if you're using {da}, outside somewhat trivial situations (where = you universally quantify over an empty domain, or where you use a {no} quan= tifier) you assert {da zasti fi de} but in general not {da zasti fi zu'= i}, since we talk about things that don't exist in reality quite freque= ntly (cf. for example djica2). With {lo} you have all the subtlety of xorlo= , which is worthy of its own discussion, probably.

Note that even this issue is a fair bit controversial; = as you'll see in various discussions, most recently "context and p= recision", the best choice of a scope for {da} variables isn't ent= irely clear. The full linguistic universe of discourse is rather impractica= lly large; almost anything else has unsatisfactory gaps. The optimal soluti= on may be to say {da poi zasti} when this is intended and otherwise use the= full universe of discourse, but this is frustrating too.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 PM, .arpis. <= rpglover64= +jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

I was a little co= nfused by something in the recent discussion on searching.

Wha= t is the difference between (pardon the theistic bent) {da cevni}, {lo cevn= i ku zasti}, and {da poi cevni cu zasti}.

I hope I'm not opening too big of a can of worms here.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--047d7b6d8102b6506e04d2fd0630--