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 m0qtcDu-00005XC; Sat, 8 Oct 94 15:54 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8918; Sat, 08 Oct 94 15:54:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8915; Sat, 8 Oct 1994 15:54:15 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5521; Sat, 8 Oct 1994 14:51:10 +0100 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 12:03:24 +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 Fri, 07 Oct 94 18:48:27 EDT.) Content-Length: 1158 Lines: 27 Dave Matuszek: > Whether universal quantification has existential import has been > argued extensively by philosophers and logicians, a lot of it during > the Middle Ages when Aristotle reigned supreme. There is no "correct" > answer. The standard interpretation in modern formal logic is that it > does not have existential import; only the explicit existential > quantifier has that. Again this is not "correct," merely what > logicians have decided is convenient. Aha. And in English they do tend to imply existence. (E.g. for "I read every book" we need "Ex [x is a book & I read x] & Ax [x is a book] -> I read x".) The lojbanic solution in such cases is usually to invent ways to express both meanings (& to make both expressions "Zipfean" - i.e. verbose in proportion to their infrequency). So I conclude that we need: (1) all, not implying existence (2) all, implying existence (3) some-but-not-necessarily-all, not implying existence [This is the ">0%" I've advocated.] (4) some-but-not-necessarily-all, implying existence (1) is "ro" & (4) is "lo" & "da". It would be nice to have a convenient expression for (2) & (3). --- And