From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:55:33 2010
Subject: Re: quantifiers
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199509220013.UAA22890@locke.ccil.org> from "John E. Clifford" at Sep 21, 95 09:24:54 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        591
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 22 12:37:15 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <2jg6FLSdUxP.A.vFB.l30kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> 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.

And I, on the other hand, believe that the three expressions are
equivalent and NONE of them has existential import; that nothing quantified
with "ro" (or "no", which is its dual) has existential import.
(I believe that jimcs also believes this.)

What are the arguments against this viewpoint?

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.