From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Sep 1 21:01:24 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:03:05 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:02:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199309020502.AA02763@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1687; Thu, 02 Sep 93 01:01:28 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3099; Thu, 02 Sep 93 01:04:17 EDT Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:01:24 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: possible sumti-raising place structures of the sisku variety X-To: snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: re facki - I included it because the "subject" could be an abstraction. I think in general, all of the epistemology gismu have the same issue, but included this one because facki and sisku are closely associated in my mind. Can you facki about lo danlriunikorni, or djuno, or anything else if unicorns don't exist. The same is true about kalte - can you hunt for anything isomorphic to the empty set, or have we just pushed the "lo nomei problem back from the obvious cases to the less obvious ones. I personally think that however that question is resolved, it will turn out that lo [empty set] must be taken as somewhat intensional, and that not all empty sets are identical. Or maybe the use of "lo broda" in a bridi amounts to a "local claim of existence" for the purpose of evaluatiing the sentence. Galadriel is seeking a unicorn on the LOCAL assumption that it exists. This is not to claim that it exists or even that Galadriel or any one else thinks it likely that it exists. But I don't know enough about logic or set theory to pretend to be able to reconcile this with the issues that get raised regarding the question. But I am terribly afraid that kalte adn facki and djuno and mulno and virtually any other bridi that can take a non-abstract in a non-agentive position (or possibly even in an agentive position, but I can't come up with any mental examples) in some circumstances, will result in problems when the referent of that object turns out to be isomorphic with lo nomei. I will have to look at other responses off line, but wuill wait to see what everyone else says before speaking up futher (if possible). lojbab