The "there exists a" = reading for the particular quantifier (often called, admittedly, "existenti= al quantifier") is just a mistake, though a fairly natural one. In most con= texts, what we are going to talk about are things that (we firmly believe a= nd that's what counts) exist. But we do occasionally enter into conve= rsations where we talk about things that do not (we believe, again) exist: = unicorns, Sherlock Holmes, and so on. But, since we talk about them, = they are in our universe of discourse, even when we actually say "Unicorns = don't exist", while discussing whether they can be piebald. In Lojban= , {zasti} is a predicate like any other, which has a corresponding extensio= n which can be anything from the entire universe of discourse to the empty = set (not a lot of conversation in this case). So, {da poi na zasti} is not an automatically failed call-up (it is never the empty set, = of course, since that always exist so long as we are talking set theory at = all). Incidentally, your thoughts about unicorns are not unicorns, so= the existence of those thought doesn't say anything about the existence of= their objects -- though usually, talking about those thoughts will guarant= ee that the objects are in the UD.

From:<= /b> Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 4:25 PM
= Subject: [lojban] da and existence=

In another thread there were comments that led me = to believe that {da} must refer to a thing that actually exists. The = definition also sounds like that is the case:
logically quantified existential pro-sumti: there exists something 1 (usual= ly restricted).

That seems kind of strange = to me. So, does {da poi na zasti} basically mean, by definition, the = empty set?

And does that mean that I have to be very careful when = using {da} to make sure that we're talking about existent things?

i.e. if I'm thinking about unicorns what does it mean for m= e to say {da poi mi pensi ke'a cu cinri}. I guess in that example it = might be ok since my (thoughts about unicorns) do exist but... still, seems= weird for {da} to require existence (if in fact I'm understanding the defi= nition correctly).

mi'e la .cribe.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.