Message-Id: <199511232039.PAA22066@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 23 Nov 1995 19:54:12 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      existential import
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

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