[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On Sunday 03 March 2002 07:01, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> 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. 
> > 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.  
Each object that is not identical with itself...
Any object that is not identical with itself...
Every object that is not identical with itself...
All objects that are not identical with themselves...

Nope, no existential import in sight in MY ontology. I get the 
membership of the empty set in each case, and accordingly in "all 
universally quantified statements where the quantifier has 
existential import." A false statement implies anything, and so all 
members of the empty set have any property you care to name.

I believe that some Lojbanists have severely overinterpreted English 
semantics. English is ambiguous, and is used in quite different ways 
by different speakers and writers.
Edward Cherlin
Does your Web site work?