Message-Id: <199502220224.AA11097@nfs2.digex.net>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Date: Tue Feb 21 21:24:21 1995
Subject:      Re: On {lo} and existence
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 21 21:24:21 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

>         pc:
>         Whoa! if the quantification is _ro_da_poi_broda_ or just plain
>         _ro_broda_ then it does entail that there are broda;

I'm glad we agree that {ro broda} and {ro da poi broda} are equivalent.
All I now need is to know whether I'm right in believing that:

        naku lo broda cu brode
        It is not the case that at least one broda is a brode.

is exactly equivalent to:

        ro lo broda naku cu brode
        For every broda, it is not the case that it is a brode.

If yes (as I believe and I'm sure that at least John Cowan agrees), then
there can be no argument that {da poi broda} is equivalent to {lo broda},
just as {roda poi broda} is equivalent to {ro broda}.

If not, then how does {lo broda} interact with negation?

As for existence, I don't think {ro broda} can entail that there are
broda. If it does, then our usual rules for passing a negation through
a {ro} won't work.


>         we set it up
>         that way.  The only "All elves" that does not is whatever has
>         become of _ro_da_kanoi_da_<elf>_ki_ and that is because of
>         _kanoi_, not _ro_ (and even it implies the rather wimpy _da_
>         _kanoi_ etc.).

I've no idea what _kanoi_ would be, but Lojban's {noi} does precisely
the opposite, i.e. it does make an incidental claim therefore requiring
existence, as in {ro da noi broda}.

>         jorge:
>         > lojbab:
>         > But I do NOT want to assume that a "lo" description is implying
>         > the real existance of the thing described.
>
>         It doesn't, just as {da} shouldn't either. They imply existence
>         of referent. What are acceptable referents is determined by what
>         the speakers of the language accept as brodas. (In the case of
>         "unicorn"in English, most of us would accept them as mythological
>         characters, existing as mythological characters, thus lo unicorn
>         is lo mythological character unicorn, and not lo real breathing
>         flesh and blood unicorn, and we have no problem with assigning
>         properties to mythological characters as mythological
>         characters.)
>
>         pc:
>         We are awfully close here and I think we may be able to formulate
>         the common elements into a clear statement.  I disagree only that
>         _pavyseljirne_ has two different definitions, under one of which
>         they exist and under the other not, and hold instead that the
>         same facts are explained by the domain place on _zasti_, which
>         (it now appears) has nothing to do with _da_.

I agree that {pavyseljirna} should not have two different definitions.
I'm saying that once we agree on what is its definition, then
{lo pavyseljirna} and {da poi pavyseljirna} refer to the same thing.
The natural definition would be to define it as a mythological entity,
however that does not preclude that within a work of fiction the definition
would be that corresponding to a breathing beast. Definitions are world
dependent, of course.

Jorge