Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931013214752.320@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:33:03 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: vilva
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To:         lojban@cuvma.BITNET
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 13 Oct 93 13:16:42 A.)
Content-Length: 906
Lines: 21

Iain says:
> Hang on!  If an omitted sumti defaulted to {da}, then this sort
> or reasoning might be relevant.  But it doesn't, it defaults to {zo'e},
> whose quantification is indeterminate.  "X is not blue" means
> "There exists a Y such that X is not bluer than Y".  Suppose I said
> "X is not bluer than ko'a".  If {ko'a} had been previously defined,
> there would be no problem.  If not, then I still see no reason to think
> it's existentially quantified.  And {zo'e} means whatever I want it
> to mean. :-)

Are you sure this is how negation works? I thought that "X is not
blue" would mean "There is no X such that there is some Y such
that X is bluer than Y". Or do you mean that "X is not blue"
means "There exists a Y such that X is not bluer than Y" *if*
(contrary to fact) _blanu_ is "x1 is bluer than x2"? (In which
case I understand you & agree.)

----
And
                    KO JBOBANPEHO