From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Dec 7 14:09:37 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA06319 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 7 Dec 1994 14:09:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199412071909.AA06319@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8063; Wed, 07 Dec 94 14:09:22 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7003; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 12:18:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:54:32 +0100 Reply-To: rricci@vaxrma.cern.ch Sender: Lojban list From: Roberto Ricci Subject: About 'zasti' To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO Hello everybody, maybe my opinions on the subject are too strongly influenced by a somewhat superficial understanding of Wittgenstein's claims about the vicious relations between misuse of language and fallacious metaphysical problems, but I feel quite uncomfortable with the presence of 'zasti' in the gismu list. IMHO, 'Exist(x)' is a notable example of a "pseudopredicate" producing a long series of inconsistencies and/or misunderstandings. As such, it should be banned in a "logical" language (by the way, this should have major consequences on the structure of Lojban-biased thought and could be of some relevance in testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). What I mean is that, for example, the meaning of the verb 'to exist' in the two sentences This desk exists and God exists is only superficially the same. If 'Exist(x)' were a legitimate predicate, the well-known theological argument for proving the existence of God by the very definition of 'God' as 'the entity everything can be predicated about' would be trivially true!... As to the relation between 'zasti' and DA cmavo, consider for example the sentence: Something does not exist (1) This sentence sounds pretty sensible (you can, for example, substitute 'Unicorns' for 'something' resulting in an admittedly true assertion). Furthermore, (1) is analogous to more innocent sentences like Something is not blue (2) which everybody would agree on. This parallelism is more evident when considering the formal logic translations of (1) and (2): Ex[~(Exist(x)] = ~Ax[Exist(x)] <----> Ex[~Blue(x)] = ~Ax[Blue(x)] The Lojban equivalent of (1) is (if I'm not mistaken :) (su'o)da naku zo'u da zasti ( = (su'o)da na zasti) = naku roda zo'u da zasti (1.1) which should be compared with the semantically "plain" Lojban bridi corresponding to (2): (su'o)da naku zo'u da blanu ( = (su'o)da na blanu) = naku roda zo'u da blanu (2.1) >From this example, I would be induced to conclude that the best (unique?) interpretation for 'da' is the restricted one, even though no relative phrase follows: 'there is at least one x *in the universe of discourse*'. In fact, if 'da' conveyed the idea of real (physical) existence, (1.1) would result in a contradiction. >From the previous observation and the claimed equivalence between 'lo broda' and 'da poi broda', I would interpret 'lo broda' too in a restricted sense as: 'at least one, *in the universe of discourse, of those that are broda'. Since what the universe of discourse is usually depends on speaker's subjective attitudes or opinions, the restricted interpretation of 'lo broda' seems to me very close (apart from the difference in the default quantifiers and specificity value) to the possible interpretation of 'le broda' as 'all of those that are broda in (my) universe of discourse'. Waiting for comments. co'o mi'e rob.