Message-Id: <199602061852.UAA10807@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:51:50 -0800
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tech: logic matters (rosu'o)
To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Sun, 04 Feb 96 01:22:55 EST." 
              <9602050428.AA27814@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Content-Length: 650
Lines: 13

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