Message-Id: <m0sxjQk-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 26 Sep 1995 23:12:51 GMT
Reply-To:     ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Iain Alexander <ia@STRYX.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers:existential import
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 941
Lines: 17

In message <9509261718.ab10526@punt-4.mail.demon.net> pcliffje@crl.com writes:
>         But then the evidence came in that _su'o lo broda_ was going to
> be a much more commonly used expression than _ro lo broda_ and so --
> by a legislative act, I think -- the implicit external quantifier on _lo_ was
> changed to _su'o_.  That meant that the implicit internal quantifier could
> no longer be _ro_ -- if that were understood to be without existential
> import -- at the risk of contradiction.

I don't understand this statement.  Obviously {su'o lo ro broda}
claims the existence of brodas, but that's because of the {su'o},
not because of the {ro}.  Removing the existential import
doesn't make it deny existence, so I don't see any contradiction.
Nor do I see it any differently if either or both quantifiers
are implicit.
--
Iain Alexander                    ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
                    I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk