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 m0r0Qa6-00006tC; Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5256; Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:53:19 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5255; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:53:19 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1664; Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:50:13 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 01:48:04 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2773 Lines: 73 Jorge quotes me(djer): la djer cusku di'e > su'o da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja mi cidja da > I eat some apples. (They exist). This is not what the Lojban sentence claims. In Lojban, you wrote: "there is some x, such that if it is an apple, I eat it". This statement is always true. It suffices to select some non-apple for da, and since in that case {da plise} is false, the whole statement is true for at least that da whether I eat it or not, and therefore the statement is true. GK> What the sentence claims is: IF there is at least one object x such that x is an apple,THEN I eat x. I believe you have misplaced your IF. For my sentence to be always true it would have to be a tautology. It has the logical form of a material implication, which is by definition not a tautology. Here is a truth table for inaja and for a tautology, P=P. P Q P=>Q P=P TT T T TF F T FT T T FF T T It is possible to produce a false implication, for example, by saying: There is an apple, and I do not eat it. My statement is not trivially always true. Jorge> The normal way to say "I eat the apple" is {mi citka le pa plise}. You can say {mi citka lo pa plise}, but then you really mean that only one apple exists. GK> Agreed. My purpose was to express the quantifier Iota(x). This quantifier asserts the existence of a unique object. Jorge> I think by "l'alfa" and "l'sma" you mean the same I wanted to get with {pa xe'e} and {su'o xe'e}. GK> Not exactly. Alpha-any means " one taken at random, or indiscriminately". Pa-xe'e can mean one taken according to an order or plan. Sigma-any means " more than one and less than all." Su'o-any means "at least one". I didn't pull these definitions out of a hat. You can read them in a dictionary. Not that I ever would have even noticed the "any" problem if you hadn't brought it up. But I think you have found a fundamental deficiency in lojban in its inability to easily express the nuances of "any". Lojban has the same problem as predicate calculus in this regard. This is because it has the same quantificational scheme. I find it strange that I have wound up arguing for the change, and you seem to be opposed. Jorge> I don't understand why you say that one should be a quantifier and the other an article. GK> It had to do with the semantic equivalence of a definite description and a certain combination of quantifiers with existence. It is a side issue and I changed my position as you can read in my any & every post. Jorge djer