Message-Id: <m0rgjU8-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 1995 01:32:33 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      On {lo}, and on nonexistence
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3038
Lines: 67

Here are a number of incompatible positions on {lo}.

[1] {lo broda} = {da poi broda}
[2] {lo broda} = >0% of broda (i.e. {pisu'o ro broda}, taken individually
                 rather than as a mass})
                 [={pisu'o ro da poi broda}]
[3] {lo broda} = {da poi da'i broda} (i.e. "that which is a broda, but
                 not necessarily in this universe")
[4] {lo broda} = +specific +veridical (this I surmised from a reccent
                 posting from pc is what he thinks {lo} should be, but
                 in The Compendium he advocates [3], so maybe I
                 misunderstood his recent remarks)

I can live with any of these, but I did not find that Lojbab's
compendium was sufficient for me to know which is correct.

In my opinion, [3] is the most consistent with established usage.

Note that there exist alternative {lo}-less ways of expressing
[1], [2], [3] (using {da poi da'i(nai)} and {pisuho ro}).
(In a sense, [4] is therefore a good choice, since there is no
alternative way of expressing +specific +veridical, but since I
am hugely skeptical about the meaningfulness or utility of
veridicality, I would not myself wish to choose [4].)

I should also like to add a note on nonexistence. If I am writing
fiction, and I say "the elf entered the room", then the elf is
+real - "that which is an elf in this universe", where this universe
is the fictional one. I think we can all agree on this. There is
no problem here.

But that sort of example is a bit of a red herring. Here is a more
relevant one, which I repeat from previous recent postings.

    I described a book I'd dreamt of.

- the book in question may not exist in this universe, but even
if it doesn't exist in this universe it is still posssible for
me to describe it in this universe.

So here is the sort of case where it matters whether a sumti is
+real or +/-real (not-necessarily-real).

In this case, I should like it to be settled whether {da poi broda}
means {da poi da'inai broda} (that which is a broda in this universe)
or {da poi da'i broda} (that which is a broda in some universe, but
not necessarily the one this discourse is located in). Comments by
pc in The Compendium indicate to me that he would be willing to
countenance either, as would I (for what that's worth), but I should
like to see the question settled.

Concerning {lo da'i unicorn}, Lojbab says to Iain:
|But if this is "da poi pavyseljirna" you are not being hypothetical at all
|you are CLAIMING existence:  da zo'u da pavyseljirna.
|I can accept discursive marking with "da'i" in non-logical discussions,
|but da'i seems incompatible with 'the present universe of discourse', it
|specifically implies to me that we are moving OUT of said universe.  At
|which point "da poi pavyseljirna" is highly questionable to me.

{lo da'i pavyseljirna} would in fact entail {da zohu da da'i pavyseljirna}.
I does claim existence of a unicorn, but not necessarily in this world.

That is, I agree with Lojbab, but he is mistaken in disagreeing with
Iain.

---
And