Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931014135714.320@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 13:10:11 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: vilva
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk>
Subject:      Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 1301
Lines: 31

mi puki cusku di'e
> > "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 la djan. cusku di'e
> My real point is that the difficulty persists whether you take the
> quantification to be existential or universal.  There are always things
> that X is not bluer than, and it is never the case that there are no things
> that X is not bluer than, regardless of whether X is blue or not blue.
> Hmm, let's try that again:
>
>         The sky is blue, but
>                 the sky is not bluer than a focal-blue color chip,
>                 which would justify "the sky is not blue"
>                 by assuming universal quantification;
>         Leaves are not blue, but
>                 they are bluer than apples,
>                 which would justify "leaves are blue"
>                 by assuming existential quantification.
>
> Either way, an unfortunate result.

*My* real point is that I see no reason why it should be quantified
at all.  It's just like a ko'a, except it's not bound to anything.

mi'e .i,n.