From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 18 17:37:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 19 Feb 2002 01:37:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 26513 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 01:37:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2002 01:37:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 01:37:16 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.17d.3ce5b10 (4541) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:37:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17d.3ce5b10.29a30645@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:37:09 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [loglanists] Sets To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17d.3ce5b10.29a30645_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_17d.3ce5b10.29a30645_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 6:12:37 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@ccil.org writes: > Nobody has ever claimed that existential ("some") statements did not > have existential import. The whole point of saying "Some swans are > white" is to assert that there *are*, indeed, swans that are white. > Well, some have claimed it for negative particulars ("Some S are not P"). In fact, Aristotle apprears to have done so at least occasionally. <> Lewis Carroll, as I recall, tried to > compromise by giving existential import to "some" statements, but not to > "all" statements (so that, by his scheme, "All unicorns are white" is > acceptable, but "Some unicorns have halitosis" is not). Carroll took the traditional view: both have existential import.> Carroll is a hard case. He published two logic books and wrote a third and through all of them he waffles. Not about "all" and "some", but about "no" and "some... not." The right answer, for all sorts of reasons, is that neither of these has existential import, but are simply the negations of their diagonal opposites, but that was too radical for Dodo, so he tried making "no" free but keeping "some...not ..." existential, then a bit of the oposite and finally a half-hearted return to orthodoxy, with the clear recognition that it was wrong. (The chief virtue of the affirmative- existential, negative -not system is that all the possibilities are definable in it. And, of course, that it is Aristotle's final system.see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/.) At last! Can I take this as the official word? No more changing next week, when I try to rely on this? No smooth-talking logicians muddying the water? And what about the negative cases? Wait! Just to be sure: the first {ro broda} is esistential, the second {ro da poi broda} is not. Right? --part1_17d.3ce5b10.29a30645_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 6:12:37 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@ccil.org writes:


Nobody has ever claimed that existential ("some") statements did not
have existential import.  The whole point of saying "Some swans are
white" is to assert that there *are*, indeed, swans that are white.


Well, some have claimed it for negative particulars ("Some S are not P").  In fact, Aristotle apprears to have done so at least occasionally.

<> Lewis Carroll, as I recall, tried to
> compromise by giving existential import to "some" statements, but not to
> "all" statements (so that, by his scheme, "All unicorns are white" is
> acceptable, but "Some unicorns have halitosis" is not).

Carroll took the traditional view: both have existential import.>

Carroll is a hard case.  He published two logic books and wrote a third and through all of them he waffles. Not about "all" and "some", but about "no" and "some... not."  The right answer, for all sorts of reasons, is that neither of these has existential import, but are simply the negations of their diagonal opposites, but that was too radical for Dodo, so he tried making "no" free but keeping "some...not ..." existential, then a bit of the oposite and finally a half-hearted return to orthodoxy, with the clear recognition that it was wrong.  (The chief virtue of the affirmative- existential, negative -not system is that all the possibilities are definable in it.  And, of course, that it is Aristotle's final system.see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/.)

<Lojban takes the second view, since both forms can be expressed:
one using number + predicate directly (= "All swans"), the other
using a bound variable and a relative clause ("All X such that").>

At last!  Can I take this as the official word?  No more changing next week, when I try to rely on this?  No smooth-talking logicians muddying the water?
And what about the negative cases?
Wait! Just to be sure: the first {ro broda} is esistential, the second {ro da poi  broda} is not. Right?




 --part1_17d.3ce5b10.29a30645_boundary--