Message-Id: <m0rh5hr-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 1995 20:20:32 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: On {lo}, and on nonexistence
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1503
Lines: 42

And:
> How *do* you say ">0% of all broda" or "25% of all broda"?

I thought of some possibilities: {rofi'uvo broda} gives you 25%,
{rofi'usu'o broda} gives you >0%, unless you let su'o reach infinity,
if you want to be sure, you could use {rofi'ume'ici'i broda}.

> Under position [3], the one I've attributed to Lojbab,
> {lo broda naku broda} can be true (and meaningful, and not a violation
> of veridicality),

Ok, if you accept that, then it may be coherent. But then {lo broda}
does not have to be an actual (this world) broda. I'm bewildered by
such an ample concept of veridicality. In some other universe, every
ninmu is a nanmu, so {lo ninmu cu nanmu} is actually true, against
previous belief.

And look what folows from it:

        lo broda naku broda
        ==>     naku ro lo broda cu broda

So you are accepting that {ro broda cu broda} can be false.
To me, that is an abomination.

> If something is a rock in some world other than this
> one, then it cannot be kicked in this world, although it can be
> described or dreamt of in this world, and it can be kicked in that world
> where it is a rock.

The question is whether it can be called {lo rokci}.

You must choose, either it can't be called {lo rokci} or it is
false that {ro rokci} is kickable.

        mi senva fi lo rokci
        i ri na ka'e se tikpa
        i seni'ibo lo rokci naku ka'e se tikpa
        i seni'ibo naku ro rokci ka'e se tikpa
        i uinai mi pu krici le du'u ro rokci ka'e se tikpa

co'o mi'e xorxes