From araizen@newmail.net Thu May 31 12:36:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 31 May 2001 19:36:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 55635 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.94] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2001 19:27:57 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:27:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: quantifiers Message-ID: <9f65vt+almc@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1108 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 12.81.165.18 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7417 pycyn on his web site: >Lojban, following the modernest of logics, fell in with this >scheme. Although it has several ways of saying "All S is P," they >are all equivalent and all ultimately the first: > >roda zo'u ganai da S gi da P > >roda poi S cu P > >ro lo S cu P > >ro S cu P > >I have argued several times over a quarter century that at least one >of these (I like {roda poi S}) should be used in the existential >import sense, so that, say, {roda poi S cu P} entails {dapoi S cu P}. I don't think that that will work, since "ro lo" is really equivalent to "ro da poi ke'a" and not "ro da poi". For example, "everything I want to eat" would have to be "ro da poi mi djica le nu citka ke'a", and can't be converted to a "ro lo" form. For a universal quantifier with existential import, I think we can use "rosu'o"/"su'oro", parallel to "roci", etc. for "all three". (Is there any convention for which number goes first in these compound quantifiers?) (The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399]) mu'o mi'e adam