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 m0qsz3d-00005YC; Thu, 6 Oct 94 22:04 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3361; Thu, 06 Oct 94 22:05:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3358; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 22:05:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0743; Thu, 6 Oct 1994 21:02:09 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:59:03 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: A couple of questions X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 06 Oct 94 17:24:44 A.) Content-Length: 836 Lines: 21 Iain (replying to Lojbab): > You seem to be saying that {lo broda cu brode}, e.g > (1) {lo mlatu je nanmu cu blanu} > could be true, even if there is > no such thing as a cat-man ***in the universe of discourse*** > (far less the real world). This doesn't make any sense to > me whatsoever - I can't think of any interpretation of (1) > which doesn't imply existence. Without wanting to disagree with you, I can think of a possibly valid interpretation that doesn't imply existence. "ro mlatu je nanmu cu blanu" doesn't imply existence, & we can gloss this as "100% of catmen are blue". We might therefore take "lo mlatu je nanmu cu blanu" to mean "more than 0% of catmen are blue", again not implying existence. (Just to confuse matters, English universal quantifiers usually imply existence, unlike Jbobau's or logic's.) --- And