Re: Analogy

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

I agreed with John that:
> > > 1)      ro da poi broda cu brode
> > > 3)      ro broda cu brode

are equvalent, and therefore, so are:

        da poi broda cu brode
        lo broda cu brode

And asks:
> Is there (I ask) a difference along the lines of (i-ii)?
>
>   (i) Ex A(x) & B(x)   [There is an x such that x is an A and x is a B]
>   (ii) Ex A(x) -> B(x) [There is an x such that if x is an A then x is a B]
>
> The second one doesn't claim there is an A.

I don't think so. The only claim being made is the relationship {brode}.

If you can't find a broda which is brodeing (either because no broda
actually exists, or because they're all busy doing something else) then
the claim is false. The claim is not about the existence of brodas.

Jorge