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 m0rF7bQ-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 23:39 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9579; Tue, 06 Dec 94 23:39:28 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9577; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 23:39:23 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1171; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 22:35:51 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:33:10 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: existential quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 05 Dec 94 14:49:02 EST.) Content-Length: 711 Lines: 19 John: > la .and. cusku di'e > > I have been told, in the last few months, that "nu" doesn't entail > > its complement bridi is true, but I should have thought that the > > existentially quantifying preceding "lo" does require there to > > be an event. > > Have I gone wrong? > > What is the solution? > > In one sense you are right, in another sense you are wrong (as you might > expect). Saying "lo nu" = "da poi nu" does entail that the event exist. > However, an event can exist independently of whether the encapsulated bridi > actually happens. Come again? Could you elaborate on how an event can exist without happening? That strikes me as a contradiction, but maybe I'm missing some subtlety. --- And