Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:59:23 AM Central Standard Time, edward@webforhumans.com writes:

Glad to hear it. I was not happy with the theory of universal
quantifiers with existential import, since I am accustomed to being
able to say "all even primes greater than two" and the like, or
pointing out that the set {x | ~x=x}, i.e. the set of all things not
identical with themselves, is empty. I'll have to wait until I see
the rest of the details of "ro lo" before I express an opinion on it.
My opinion will not be based on an idea of which version is correct.
We are dealing in axioms here, not theorems, and certainly not truth.
It will depend on the simplicity or complexity of the transformation
rules.

Still, I expect that I can live with this grammar, even though it
appears weird to me, as long as "ro da" behaves the way I prefer.

The two "versions" are, in fact, two different and equally plausible representations of universal quantifiers: English "each" and "any," for example.  So we are dealing with truth and axioms -- and also theorems (how does negation work, in particular), but of two different system.  The problem is to integrate them into a single language which continues to be logical in more than the primary sense.  The existential import notion shouldn't seem weird, you've lived with it all your life, as also (though less obviously) with the free version.  I am amused to see that you thought the system in Lojban was the one with import, since I have always thought and complained that it was the free version -- so much for definitieve statements about things.