From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 07 22:50:50 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3297 ; Wed, 07 Jun 95 22:50:47 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 07 Jun 95 21:47:57 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa25495; 7 Jun 95 22:47 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3666; Wed, 07 Jun 95 15:56:07 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7659; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:15:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:58:42 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: non-existance predications X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506072247.aa25495@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >Subject: Re: non-existance predications >la lojbab cusku di'e >> Since the "na" has scope of the entire bridi, there is no problem. It >> converts to "naku lo crida zo'u lo crida cu zasti" "It is not the case >> that: for something that is a fairy, that fairy exists." > >Does it work like that? What ties the {lo crida} in the prenex with the >one in the body of the phrase? As I understand it they are independent, >just like {lo prenu cu prami lo prenu} does not say that some person >loves themself, only that some person loves some person. > >You'd have to say something like {naku lo crida zo'u: cy zasti} to get >what you want. What you wrote means "it is not the case that for some >fairy, some fairy exists." I am pretty sure that there has been no convention declared for non-da-series sumti in the prenex. It has always been by assumption that putting a sumti in the prenex binds it; i.e. it fixes its value for the scope of the prenex. Thus, "lo broda" in the prenex should fix the value of "lo broda". If putting a non-da in the prenex doesn't bind it unless you equate it to an anaphora as you did (cy), I am not sure I see what it would mean to put a non-anaphorized, non-da sumti in the prenex. So repeating such a sumti would seem at least pragmatically to imply identity. There is merit in your approach as being less reliant on convention, at perhaps some loss in either clarity or wordiness (if you have more than one selbri description starting with 'c', you would need to explicitly use "goi". >> Let us say that "nalzasti" is such a selbri (at one time "xanri" had >> this meaning). Then: "lo crida cu nalzasti" could cause a problem if >> there are no such things as fairies. > >Depends what you mean by {nalzasti}. Is it true that {noda nalzasti}? >Is {lo'i nalzasti} the empty set? If yes, then {lo crida cu nalzasti} >has to be false, but I don't think you want {lo'i nalzasti} to be the >empty set, it probably has an infinite number of elements. I guess you are righht - it depends on definition of the brivla. But the definition I intended would have no valid (i.e. existent) elements. If any true statement involving "nalzasti" exists, it would be "noda nalzasti". I was using the "lo [unicorn] interpretation that lets you say "lo [unicorn] zasti" and have the statement have meaning. "lo nalzasti cu zasti" had better be false, which it would not be if it had an infinite number of elements. >No, the existence postulated in the prenex is merely one of reference. >If there is a predicate, and the predicate is not meaningless, then I >don't see how it can be referentially empty. le'i du be la [empty set] or le'i se cmima be noda should be referentially empty. lojbab