Message-Id: <199509220013.UAA22890@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 21 Sep 1995 09:24:54 -0700
Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199509200529.BAA04505@access4.digex.net>
Status: OR

On Wed, 20 Sep 1995, Logical Language Group wrote:

> Not having followed the argument that led up to this "ro broda" proposal,
> can you summarize for me what the alternatives are, and which one you are
> proposing.  And if this applies to ci broda identically.
>
> Specifically, I am curious as to what "ro lo broda" means under the current
> argument, so I know why you are calling it the "odd notion" interpretation
> of "ro broda".
>
> lojbab
>
The argument goes that we have somehow gotten to the point where  _ro da
poi broda_ = _ro lo broda_ = _ro broda_ and, since the first of these is
given as having existential import, all the rest do too.  This leaves
people who want a universal without existential import with no short
form, only the logic forms with unrestricted quantifier and "if" of
fairly complex forms with double descriptors (and dubious import). Of the
three identities, the one that links _ro broda_ to the other two seems
the weakest, relying on neither usage nor fundamental logical
principles.  So I suggested we might separate _ro broda_ off from the
others and use it for non-commital     quantifier form.  I suppose this
proposal has conssequences for expressions like _ci broda, but they will
be minor, since it mainly affects  existential import, which _ci broda_
already has.  It is, thus, _ro broda_, not _ro lo broda_ that gets the
odd reading, i.e., the one without existential import
pc>|83n