Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA23073 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:59:01 +0200 Message-Id: <199602081059.MAA23073@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 468BC0FE ; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 11:58:51 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:57:44 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: ro X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 711 Lines: 16 1. Apparently, if [Ax Fx] then [Ex Fx]. 2. Apparently, {da poi} is restricted quantification. 3. So {ro da poi kea broda cu brode} claims there are brode, and there are broda. 4. It has standardly been held that {ro broda} and {ro lo broda} both are equivalent to {ro da poi broda}, or more generally that {lo broda} = {da poi broda}. I think this equivalence should be ditched. {ro (lo) broda cu brode} should be equivalent to {ro da na ku ge broda gi na brode} or something of that ilk. This has the advantage that it doesn't claim there are broda or brode, and therefore corresponds to (almost?) everyone's intuitions on the matter. That should satisfy everyone, no? coo, mie And