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 m0r7QMW-00006eC; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2907; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:04:14 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2903; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:04:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5829; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:00:55 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:49:20 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Re Cowan#2 lo, da poi X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411120435.AA28170@nfs2.digex.net> from "Gerald Koenig" at Nov 11, 94 04:47:30 pm Content-Length: 1537 Lines: 34 mi pu cusku di'e > The "official" line on "lo" and "da poi" has always been that they don't > mean the same thing, because "lo -nonexistent" could be valid, whereas > "da poi -nonexistent" was self-contradictory, as "da" can be glossed > "there exists an X". I now believe this to have been a mistake: "lo" > under current definitions is the equivalent of "da poi", simply syntactic > sugar. However, I am going to propose a small change in interpretation > that will give it added value. la djer. cusku di'e > There might be other contexts besides negation where "da poi" as a > direct substitution for "lo" would yield unexpected results. > For example: > > 1). lo ro tanxe cu ckaji lo xa sefta > All the real boxes have the property of six surfaces. (The boxes exist) > > 2). da poi ro tanxe cu ckaji lo xa sefta > Something which is all boxes has the propery of six surfaces. Note the phrase "syntactic sugar". I did not mean that "lo" can be substituted for "da poi" or vice versa, simply that the meaning of one construct is defined in terms of the other. In particular, "lo" takes a selbri, whereas "da poi" takes a full bridi; furthermore (as you rightly indicate) "lo" can have an inner quantifier, which makes an incidental assertion about the cardinality of the description (number of members in the set), as all LE/LA cmavo can; to express the same thing with "da poi" requires circumlocution. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.