la .pycyn. cu cusku di'e
Always could; existence is a predicate, being there is the UD. So, {lo
pavyseljirna cu broda} always implies {da pavyseljirna } but never
(directly) {da poi pavyseljirna cu zasti}.
{lo pavyseljirna cu broda} does not imply {da pavyseljirna}, but {da pavyseljirna} implies {lo pavyseljirna cu broda}. The universe of discourse is not the only thing of importance here. Let's say I'm a hunter, and it so happens that the species I'm hunting for has gone extinct earlier that day (but I don't know that). For simplicity sake, let us say that it was deer. There are no deer left.
In this scenario, we can make certain claims about lo mirli, without implying anything about its existence:
mi sisku lo mirli
I'm looking for deer.
Here, {lo mirli cu broda} but {na ku da mirli}.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.