Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tIIW8-0000ZUC; Wed, 22 Nov 95 18:59 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BA0C9C1C ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 17:59:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:58:41 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: logical issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1160 Lines: 30 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