Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] Quantifiers, Existential Import, and all that stuff

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:22:43 EST

In a message dated 3/8/2002 8:46:49 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> The only differences (pc will correct me if there are any more)
> are that for me {ro broda} is equivalent to {ro da poi broda}
> and {no broda} is equivalent to {no da poi broda}, i.e. they
> don't have existential import, whereas for pc these are not
> equivalent.
> 
> For pc {ro broda} is equivalent to {ro lo su'o broda}, i.e. it
> has existential import, and similarly {no broda} is equivalent
> to {no lo su'o broda}.
> 
> Other than that, I think we agree on everything.
> 

I think we need to go back a step. Where we basically disagree is on whether 
{ro} by itself has existential import. I say it does (and say that its having 
it is firmly built into Lojban and logic); xorxes says it does not. It is 
from that fact that xorxes derives that {ro lo su'o broda} is different from 
{ro lo ro broda} and that the second allows that the set of broda might be 
empty and yet sentences containing it not be treated as cases of illicit 
reference. This then does result in his {ro lo ro broda} being equivalent to 
{ro da poi broda}. And so on, though {su'o lo ro broda} does apparently have 
existential import, so the principle involved in these assignments is not 
everywhere clear.

We can put this bit up on the wiki or we can wait until the issue is settled 
(after only 25 years) and see to it that the official line gets out to 
everyone.