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 m0qnxgB-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 02:35 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7018; Fri, 23 Sep 94 02:34:27 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7017; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 02:34:27 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5921; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:33:12 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 15:52:19 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: TECH: "any" & quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 623 Lines: 16 Jorge cusku di'e: >> By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence? > >Does {mi viska lo pavyseljirna} assert existance, or the fact that there >are no unicorns makes the sentence false? How can "I can look at a unicorn" possibly be true statement, unless I exist, and at least one unicorn exists? That's why I think useful transparent statements with the hypothetical "xa'a" have to implicitly assert existence. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~