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 m0rEjSx-00007GC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 21:52 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8162; Mon, 05 Dec 94 21:53:09 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8159; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:53:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6721; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:49:53 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 14:49:02 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: existential quantification X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411212221.AA16673@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 21, 94 08:28:01 pm Content-Length: 921 Lines: 24 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.