From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Fri Nov 20 11:26:24 1992
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:49:59 -0500
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 2829; Fri, 20 Nov 92 07:46:48 EST
Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id  8642; Fri, 20 Nov 92 07:46:48 EST
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      TECH: The meaning of existence
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <gfHHpzF7CWI.A.oVE.ct0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

(A spin-off from the "goat's legs" discussion.)

I think I've finally figured out what's been bothering
me about {da} and existential quantification generally
in Lojban.  It's that in normal usage it's not at all
clear what the scope of the quantification is, because
of the way it's bound up with the {da} or the {su'o}
quantifier.

If I translate the English "I want an apple" as
{mi djica lo plise}, that appears to expand to the full
prenex form {da poi plise zo'u mi djica da}, whereas
what I mean is more like {mi djica lonu zasti fa lo plise pe mi},
where I've split the quantification out into a separate predicate.

The first version, although it's not specific as to number or
the identity of the apple(s) in question, nevertheless carries
a suggestion that I have a specific apple in mind as the object
of my desire.

The second version makes it much clearer that what I'm interested
in is that there should be such an apple, irrespective of which one.
(There is still a residual confusion caused by {lo nu co'e},
suggesting that I have a particular _event_ in mind, which I _think_
can be removed by using {le nu} instead, in spite of the fact that
this appears to make {le} _less_ specific than {lo} in this context.)

There are various ways of rewording this version

        mi djica lenu da poi plise zo'u da srana mi

or to make it more manageable

        mi djica tu'a lo plise

One of the things I'm suggesting by this is that the extent to
which we are specific is only partly related to the actual
quantifier used.  We can use a highly specific quantifier such
as a number, without being specific about identity

        mi djica tu'a re plise

        mi djica lenu zasti fa re plise pe mi

as well as vice versa

        mi djica le plise

mi'e .i,n.