Message-Id: <m0rFQ8O-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:54:32 +0100
Reply-To:     rricci@VAXRMA.CERN.CH
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Roberto Ricci <rricci@VAXRMA.CERN.CH>
Subject:      About 'zasti'
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2963
Lines: 72

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.