Message-Id: <199509201651.MAA09098@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:37:20 BST
Reply-To: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: quantifiers
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>         When someone says in the ordinary course of events (well, not
> all that ordinary in this traditional example) "All unicorns are white,"
> the response "There aren't any unicorns" is neither intended nor
> understood as confirming the original claim.  It is a challenge to the
> original claim, a contrary claim to it, as much as "Some are blue" is.  It
> is this fundamental fact that logic has always taken into account in its
> treatment of quatifiers, abetted of course by the fact that we usually do
> not talk about what is not, except with conscious care.

This reminds of the conundrum which goes something like:

"Do you enjoy beating your wife?"

"Yes" means that you beat beat your wife and you enjoy it.

"No" means you beat your wife, but you don't enjoy it, sort of doing it out of
a sense of duty.

"Mu" means 'I deny the premise of your question', i.e. I don't  beat my wife
(the set of events of I beating my wife is null).  Mu as I read about it
is supposed to be of Oriental origin and would be the appropriate response
to .i piro loi pavyjirna cu blanu vau

co'o mi'e dn.