Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:35:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710151635.LAA12298@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: not just X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 921 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 15 11:35:35 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >> indicates that the predication holds >> for X and that there is at least one other X' that is also true. > po`onai. I thought it was you who came up with that. In the same way that "na'e" implies "na" is unresolved, I wouldn't want to jump the gun on the semantics of "po'onai". Does the "nai" for "po'o" mean that the predication is false or that there is a different predication that is true or both? It is difficult to say what would be best. > One way is {ji'a}: > la djan ji'a cu pinxe le ckafi > Also John drinks coffee. > That implies that someone else does. That's pretty good. I had only thought of "ji'a" as extending a previous prediction. It certainly seems to make sense that removing the previous prediction "ji'a" would imply its existence. For a sumti, "ji'a" means: ji'a (f (x)) = f (x) ^ Ex': (x != x') ^ f (x') which is spot on. ni'oco'omi'e dn.