non-existance predications

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

la lojbab. cusku di'e
 > ..
 > Since the "na" has scope of the entire bridi, there is no problem.  It
 > converts to "naku lo crida zo'u lo crida cu zasti" "It is not the case
 > that:  for something that is a fairy, that fairy exists."
 >
 > The problem arises if you have a selbri which requires non-existance.
 > Let us say that "nalzasti" is such a selbri (at one time "xanri" had
 > this meaning).

Would {tolzasti} be better?

 > Then:  "lo crida cu nalzasti" could cause a problem if
 > there are no such things as fairies.  I'm not sure it does, because for
 > me, the equivalent "lo crida zo'u lo crida cu nalzasti", the prenexing
 > in the "lo crida" form contains no stronger claim of existence than it
 > does in the main text.  But in the "da poi" form there is a clear
 > problem:  da poi crida zo'u da nalzasti clearly is false because you
 > have postulated the existance of da in the prenex, then said that da
 > not-exists, contradicting yourself.

Right.  In fact, {lo broda cu tolzasti} is always false--this says, in
English, "Some brodas do not exist", which is clearly non-sensical.
What does make sense is {ro crida cu tolzasti}.

 > lojbab

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.