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 m0qo4NI-00005ZC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 09:44 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1300; Fri, 23 Sep 94 09:43:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1296; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 09:43:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0176; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 08:41:54 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 07:42:19 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: "any" & quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 22 Sep 94 15:52:19 CST.) Content-Length: 702 Lines: 19 Chris: > >> 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. Right, but it can be existence in a fantasy world rather than the real one. "There is a unicorn that I imagined" can be true evn if the unicorn exists only in my imagination. I don't think unicorns really have any bearing on the 'any' debate. --- And