| In a message dated 11/5/2002 8:15:43 PM Central Standard Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as >> I don't like &'s solution that the inner {ro} means something different from the outer; I prefer that there simply are no implicit inner quantifiers at all (I am not sure quite why they are there anyhow). As for Logic, non-importing quantifiers are extremely rare (I can think of maybe half-a-dozen books that use them and they almost all fringe). The view that they are common is simply a confusion between the quantifier itself and the way that modern logic choses to translate English (etc.) universal claims. This involves putting the apparent subject term in as antecedent of a material conditional, which is true if the antecedent is false. The universal quantifier in these translations is still importing (entails the corresponding particular claim) but the existence it imports is of universal class. {ro} is supposed to me just that quantifier, or its restricted form, the traditional universal affirmative, which imports for its class as well. |