Message-Id: <199310131216.AA02429@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:16:42 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

la djan. cusku di'e

> Doesn't work.  To deny that something is big is not the same as to deny
> that there exists something else which it is bigger than.  I deny that a
> mouse is big, but I affirm that a mouse is bigger than something (e.g. a
> fly).

> Similarly with the colors.  Loglan "blanu" meant "x1 is bluer than x2",
> but Lojban blanu is just "x1 is blue", because "X is not blue" does not
> mean "There does not exist a Y such that X is bluer than Y", nor does it
> mean "For all Y, X is not bluer than Y".  The latter (universal) reading
> would construe "The sky is not blue" as true, because it is not as blue as
> a color-chip displaying focal blue.  The former (existential) reading would
> construe "Leaves are not blue" as false, because the color of leaves is closer
> to focal-blue than, say, the color of McIntosh apples.

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. :-)

I can see why you might have gone this route, but I think this reasoning
is purely historical.

mi'e .i,n.