From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Mon Oct 10 12:49:41 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA19009 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 10 Oct 1994 12:49:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199410101649.AA19009@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1270; Mon, 10 Oct 94 12:50:53 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5263; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 11:52:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 17:48:13 +0200 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Types of quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO One reason to differentiate between {vo da poi} and {vo [lo]} is that le kanba cu se tuple vo da says that 'the goat has four legs, no less, no more' (according to the discussion a couple of years back). If {vo [lo]} would equal {vo da poi}, it would be impossible to say mi citka vo plise without claiming that during all my life I eat exactly 4 apples (if truth values are to be determined over all eternity as Jorge maintains). In everyday life it is, however, necessary to be able to make claims which have a limited IMPLICIT scope. Using {da poi} for existential veridical claims which can be logically manipulated and {lo} for these 'everyday' veridical claims would remove a large class of usage problems. So {mi citka lo plise} would just claim that I eat four apples within an unspecified frame of reference without the claim becoming false if I eat a fifth one one minute later. Some kind of separation is, IMHO, necessary in order to avoid an immense lot of trouble - if the language is ever to be used for something even remotely approaching normal conversation. -- co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------