Message-Id: <199601142258.AAA13792@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 14 Jan 1996 14:49:53 -0800
Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      tech:logical matters
To:         lojban list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Content-Length: 3068
Lines: 46

&:
I think it's likely that people who thought they were arguing with
you about existential import were in reality arguing about restricted
quantifiers. - That is, there really was a communication failure.
pc:
I don't think so.  Looking back at the record, I see that I was always
careful to distinguish between Ax:Fx => Gx and (AxFx)Gx, between _ro da
poi broda cu brode_ and all the other forms, between AxFx and (AxFx)Gx,
and to say what the differences were.  And, so far as I can tell, everyone
else in the discussion followed my lead in making those distinctions,
except that they insisted that 1) _ro da poi broda_ did not mean anything
different from _ro broda_ (etc.), 2) AxFx did not entail ExFx, 3) (AxFx)Gx
did not entail (ExFx)Gx, 4) (AxFx)Gx did not mean anything different from
Ax:Fx=>Gx and 5) that only the latter form was a correct symbolization of
"All F are G."  and I repeatedly pointed out that 1) might be true now but
was historically inaccurate and left a major gap in the the Lojban system,
that 2) was simply false, that 3)& 4) were generally taken to be false
(though the symbolism was used by all sorts) and that 5) was flat false
(with citations).  But we were clearly talking about the same things, as
repeated counterarguments showed (thought there was a group who, contrary
to your scenario, thought universals had no existential import but denied
that the "All F are" forms were conditional).  I even got someone (I
thought it was &, but apparently not, since he claims only now to notice
the distinction) at some point to admit that restricted quantifiers ought
to be treated just like unrestricted quantifiers in this matter, but he
then went on to infer therefrom that restricted quantifiers did not have
existential import because the unrestricted ones did not. (BTW, the
discussion started from my saying that, if the implicit internal
quantifier in _lo broda_ was _ro_, then logically all forms of _lo broda_
required that there be brodas.  For those who denied that -- most people
in the discussion, I think -- there is no way to get existential import
(without adding "and there are brodas" somewhere) because, while _(su'o)
lo (ro) broda_ does say there are brodas, because of the _su'o_, _ro lo
(ro) broda_ would not, for neither _ro_ would have that implication).
Rather than a failure of communication, it looks to me a lot more like a
case of of people getting half of a half-understood idea in their mind,
then generalizing it illegitimately, thus making it their own.  So, when
they were exposed to the full content of the full idea, they reject it as
not being the standard stuff, which is what they take their creation to
be.  And, of course, since they got their stuff (so they think) from the
standard source, there is no point in checking just to be sure.  I take it
that the fact that my say-so was not enough to even get someone to check
whether there was something more in that note they half remembered and
generalized upon is a reductio ad absurdum on any claim that I have some
influence around here.
pc>|83