Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qpGYO-000024C; Mon, 26 Sep 94 15:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3651; Mon, 26 Sep 94 15:51:48 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3649; Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:51:46 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2297; Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:48:48 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:44:41 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Analogy Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199409231701.AA01181@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Sep 23, 94 01:01:30 pm Content-Length: 1106 Lines: 28 la lojbab. cusku di'e > Note when you explain the "ro finpe cu broda pa finpe" being 'equivalent; > to "roda pade zo'u ... that this is an approximate transformation, since > it assumes that the fish in question actually exist. I've just been > making a big deal in this discussion that "ro finpe" is ro lo finpe, > which is not necessarily roda poi finpe. Not at all; this is a confusion. It isn't the presence of a da-series variable that carries the implicit existential quantification; it's the implicit "su'o" understood before bare "da". If you explicitly say "ro da", that is a universal quantification which does not imply existence. So: 1) ro da poi broda cu brode all things which are widgets are gilkickies 2) ro da poi broda zo'u da brode for all Xs, where X is a widget, X is a gilkickie 3) ro broda cu brode all widgets are gilkickies are strictly equivalent in meaning, and imply nothing about the existence of widgets. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.