Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tIiGI-0000ZUC; Thu, 23 Nov 95 22:28 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 24CAACC1 ; Thu, 23 Nov 1995 21:28:50 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 19:54:12 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: existential import X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 857 Lines: 17 I'm a bit mystified by the debate about whether universal quantifiers entail reference to something. Questions about the meaning of English or Spanish words are irrelevant. As for whether in formal logic, A entails E, I'd have thought that all one needed to do to answer that was ask a logician, but it turns out that pc thinks A does entail E, while everyone else (this includes a lot of people) thinks it doesn't. But it stills makes little sense to debate this issue - it's merely a matter of checking with more logicians, or whatever. As far as I can see, we simply need to decide for ourselves whether we want {ro} to entail {suo} (and whichever choice wins, how we express the rejected one). My vote goes for {ro} NOT entailing {suo}, because the ro that entails {suo} is easily expressible by {ro lo suo broda} or (I think) {ro lo suo da}. --- And