Message-Id: <199511262248.RAA06323@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:37:19 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: logical matters
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

pc on {ro}:

> But, as noted, that speaks, in Lojban, only to _ro da poi broda_  (and
> plain _ro da_ of course -- has anyone ever really challenged it?).

It would be hard to challenge. I can't conceive of a language
working on an empty universe. Wouldn't the very sentence that used {ro}
in such a way be a value that da can take?

In any case, I don't think that there is any need to settle this issue.
The question is never relevant in everyday discourse, and in the cases
where it is relevant (e.g. a mathematician proving a theorem) then they
will just have to mind their {da poi}s. They may end up with an invalid
proof in the eyes of those who attribute existential import to {ro}.

> All
> the others, that somehow got identified in with these, _ro broda_ and _ro
> lo broda_ at least, are too far out of the ken of logicians (who don't do
> plurals well, remember) to be bound by that.  So they can be cheerfully
> employed referring to empty sets if there is any need for it.

But since practically never is there a need for it, the whole issue
is probably not even worth mentioning. The most frequent use of {ro} is
as the default for {le}, which does have existential import because
{le broda} is short for {ro le su'o broda}.

BTW, I like McCawley's account of Russell's "the". It corresponds almost
perfectly to Lojban's {le}, the difference being that Russell would have
{ro le pa broda} instead of {ro le su'o broda} for "the".

Jorge