Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id OAA07301 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 14:23:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199602061923.OAA07301@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id CECBE91A ; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:52:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:51:50 -0800 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jim Carter Subject: Re: tech: logic matters (rosu'o) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 04 Feb 96 01:22:55 EST." <9602050428.AA27814@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 650 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 6 14:23:17 1996 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Lojbab writes on Sun, 4 Feb 1996 01:22:55 -0500: > Looking at this exchange between pc and Iain, and guessing that I MIGHT have > an inkling as to what the discussion is about, how about reversing the > meanings and having "ro" NOT have existential import (any?) and rosu'o > be the version with existentiual import (every?) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (10 yesses outweigh one no :-) Definitely we need both. To my mind, the more "logical" choice is to have "ro" mean "any" without existential import, while "rosu'o" clearly does explicitly have the additional "at least one" meaning, for existential import. -- jimc