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 m0qtKLC-00005XC; Fri, 7 Oct 94 20:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0504; Fri, 07 Oct 94 20:48:37 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0501; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 20:48:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5040; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:45:39 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:32:47 +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 20:13:50 EDT.) Content-Length: 611 Lines: 16 Jorge: > > We might therefore take "lo mlatu je nanmu cu blanu" to mean > > "more than 0% of catmen are blue", again not implying existence. > > But {lo} has an "at least one" quantifier, not "at least some %". > Otherwise, su'o doesn't work as the negation of ro. You're right: such has been the stipulation. But what is the rationale? What is the interpretation for uncountable stuff? "At least one water"? That is, I think there is a reasonable way of giving "lo" a default interpretation that doesn't imply existence, though I accept that this is not what the present interpretation of "lo" is. ---- And