Message-Id: <199511221710.MAA09365@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:58:41 -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 issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.)
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la djan cusku di'e

> Poof.  In fact, "mi se cmene zo xorxes" became true only when you joined
> the Lojban community.

So {la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa} is false?

> All claims are about stages; some stages may last
> as long as the individual does.  To think otherwise is a residue of
> essentialism.

Well, if you say {le gerku cu klama le zarci} and later {le gerku cu zvati
le zarci}, are the referents of {le gerku} the same in both sentences?
They are obviously different stages, so if they are the same something,
that something is not the stages mentioned in each sentence.

Read again your sentence: "All claims are about stages; some stages may last
as long as the individual does." What do you mean by "the individual"?
Aren't you making a claim about it?

Of course I'm not saying that Lojban should make the distinction explicit,
God forbid! I only pointed out that it is an interesting one.

I give up on arguing that "all" need not have existential import, since
any claim I make about English will be suspect. I do claim that "todos"
need not have existential import, and I don't see why {ro} should have.

(todos=all; todo=every)

Jorge