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 m0qpsHP-00005IC; Wed, 28 Sep 94 08:14 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0695; Wed, 28 Sep 94 08:14:25 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0692; Wed, 28 Sep 1994 08:14:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9934; Wed, 28 Sep 1994 07:11:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 07:12:47 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Analogy X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 27 Sep 94 16:09:53 EDT.) Content-Length: 588 Lines: 20 Jorge: > > 1) ro da poi broda cu brode > > 2) ro da poi broda zo'u da brode > > 3) ro broda cu brode > > > > are strictly equivalent in meaning, and imply nothing about the existence > > of widgets. > > I agree that those are equivalent. I don't see any difference between > {lo broda} and {da poi broda} either Is there (I ask) a difference along the lines of (i-ii)? (i) Ex A(x) & B(x) [There is an x such that x is an A and x is a B] (ii) Ex A(x) -> B(x) [There is an x such that if x is an A then x is a B] The second one doesn't claim there is an A. --- And