Message-Id: <m0qmO6k-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 1994 09:25:00 -0600
Reply-To:     Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1203
Lines: 23

The set of unicorns does exist; it happens to be empty.  Similarly,
"lea preda" always exists, but may be empty.

I don't think that dodges about empty sets will save you.  Here is why not:

"I need a box which will hold my house (when there are no such boxes)"

is FALSE if it is interpreted as referring to "some element of (a restricted
subset of) the set of boxes"; if the set is suitably restricted, there is
no element of the restricted subset, so a statement about "some"
element of that set is automatically false.  But this statement is
true; thus, in spite of its surface form, it does not contain an
existential quantifier over any set of boxes whatsoever!!!

I think that what is really needed by the speaker is a certain state
of affairs:  I need that (there be a box big enough to hold my house
and I have it).  Notice that this statement is not about any
particular box, nor does it presuppose the existence of a suitable
box.  The form of the sentence in Loglan or Lojban would be such that
it would be clear that it was unreasonable to ask "which box?", which
is not true if the surface form of the English is followed.

                                                --Randall Holmes