From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199409261344.AA13246@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Analogy
To: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:44:41 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To: <199409231701.AA01181@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Sep 23, 94 01:01:30 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1045
Status: RO

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> Note when you explain the "ro finpe cu broda pa finpe" being 'equivalent;
> to "roda pade zo'u  ... that this is an approximate transformation, since
> it assumes that the fish in question actually exist.  I've just been
> making a big deal in this discussion that "ro finpe" is ro lo finpe,
> which is not necessarily roda poi finpe.

Not at all; this is a confusion.  It isn't the presence of a da-series
variable that carries the implicit existential quantification; it's the
implicit "su'o" understood before bare "da".  If you explicitly say "ro da",
that is a universal quantification which does not imply existence.  So:

1)	ro da poi broda cu brode
	all things which are widgets are gilkickies

2)	ro da poi broda zo'u da brode
	for all Xs, where X is a widget, X is a gilkickie

3)	ro broda cu brode
	all widgets are gilkickies

are strictly equivalent in meaning, and imply nothing about the existence
of widgets.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.