Re: non-existance predications

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

>Subject:      Re: non-existance predications
>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."
>
>Does it work like that?  What ties the {lo crida} in the prenex with the
>one in the body of the phrase?  As I understand it they are independent,
>just like {lo prenu cu prami lo prenu} does not say that some person
>loves themself, only that some person loves some person.
>
>You'd have to say something like {naku lo crida zo'u:  cy zasti} to get
>what you want.  What you wrote means "it is not the case that for some
>fairy, some fairy exists."

I am pretty sure that there has been no convention declared for
non-da-series sumti in the prenex.  It has always been by assumption
that putting a sumti in the prenex binds it; i.e. it fixes its value for
the scope of the prenex.  Thus, "lo broda" in the prenex should fix the
value of "lo broda".

If putting a non-da in the prenex doesn't bind it unless you equate it
to an anaphora as you did (cy), I am not sure I see what it would mean
to put a non-anaphorized, non-da sumti in the prenex.  So repeating such
a sumti would seem at least pragmatically to imply identity.

There is merit in your approach as being less reliant on convention, at
perhaps some loss in either clarity or wordiness (if you have more than
one selbri description starting with 'c', you would need to explicitly
use "goi".

>> Let us say that "nalzasti" is such a selbri (at one time "xanri" had
>> this meaning).  Then:  "lo crida cu nalzasti" could cause a problem if
>> there are no such things as fairies.
>
>Depends what you mean by {nalzasti}.  Is it true that {noda nalzasti}?
>Is {lo'i nalzasti} the empty set?  If yes, then {lo crida cu nalzasti}
>has to be false, but I don't think you want {lo'i nalzasti} to be the
>empty set, it probably has an infinite number of elements.

I guess you are righht - it depends on definition of the brivla.  But
the definition I intended would have no valid (i.e. existent) elements.
If any true statement involving "nalzasti" exists, it would be "noda
nalzasti".  I was using the "lo [unicorn] interpretation that lets you
say "lo [unicorn] zasti" and have the statement have meaning.  "lo
nalzasti cu zasti" had better be false, which it would not be if it had
an infinite number of elements.

>No, the existence postulated in the prenex is merely one of reference.
>If there is a predicate, and the predicate is not meaningless, then I
>don't see how it can be referentially empty.

le'i du be la [empty set]
or le'i se cmima be noda

should be referentially empty.

lojbab