From lojbab Mon Dec 5 14:49:17 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412051949.AA10372@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: existential quantification Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 14:49:02 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411212221.AA16673@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 21, 94 08:28:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 889 Status: RO 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. Thus, you can speak of "lo nu mi ninmu" even though you are not a woman. To assert that some event actually takes place, use "fasnu": da poi nu mi nanmu cu fasnu So I think that your proposed use of "si'o" is not necessary. This is not official, merely my opinion. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.