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 m0qq9hz-00005JC; Thu, 29 Sep 94 02:50 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3904; Thu, 29 Sep 94 02:51:02 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3903; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 02:51:02 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0127; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 01:47:50 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 18:44:53 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Analogy X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 755 Lines: 24 I agreed with John that: > > > 1) ro da poi broda cu brode > > > 3) ro broda cu brode are equvalent, and therefore, so are: da poi broda cu brode lo broda cu brode And asks: > 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. I don't think so. The only claim being made is the relationship {brode}. If you can't find a broda which is brodeing (either because no broda actually exists, or because they're all busy doing something else) then the claim is false. The claim is not about the existence of brodas. Jorge