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 m0qtLPq-00005XC; Fri, 7 Oct 94 21:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1472; Fri, 07 Oct 94 21:57:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1469; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 21:57:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8914; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 20:54:33 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 20:34:08 +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 18:33:27 A.) Content-Length: 582 Lines: 14 Iain: > if you really want to say that some-but-not-necessarily-all elves > have pointy ears, then you have to allow that such things as elves > exist, if only for the purposes of the discussion. This bit I don't go along with. It should be possible to talk about >0% of all elves without allowing there are any elves, just as talking about 100% of elves doesn't entail there are any. [This happens to be what I'd prefer for the default interpretation of "lo": i.e. I agree with you & Jorge about what "lo" means now, but I agree with Lojbab about what it ought to mean.] --- And