Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA21315 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 7 Oct 1994 16:01:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199410072001.AA21315@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3227; Fri, 07 Oct 94 16:01:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3811; Fri, 7 Oct 1994 14:39:24 -0400 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: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 06 Oct 94 20:13:50 EDT.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Oct 7 16:01:29 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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