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 m0r5BAu-00004zC; Wed, 9 Nov 94 13:26 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1880; Wed, 09 Nov 94 13:26:19 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1875; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 13:26:18 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5852; Wed, 9 Nov 1994 12:23:08 +0100 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 11:17:16 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 605 Lines: 14 cu'u la .and. > My failure of understanding is that it seems to me that you need to > add "so long as noone else is sitting on the sofa" Not for my money. I hold that any statement of possibility should (by default at least) mean that there are circumstances under which the statement holds true, not that it holds true under all conceivable circumstances. This makes it negate to impossible (not possible under any circumstances), and the dual of "necessary" (necessary(x) <=> not possible(not x)). This is I believe the usual formulation of necessity and possibility in modal logic. co'o mi'e .i,n.