From araizen@newmail.net Thu May 31 12:36:54 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 31 May 2001 19:36:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 55635 invoked from network); 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 May 2001 19:27:59 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net
Received: from [10.1.10.94] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2001 19:27:57 -0000
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:27:57 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: quantifiers
Message-ID: <9f65vt+almc@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1094
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 12.81.165.18
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>

pycyn on his web site:

>Lojban, following the modernest of logics, fell in with this 
>scheme. Although it has several ways of saying "All S is P," they 
>are all equivalent and all ultimately the first:
>
>roda zo'u ganai da S gi da P
>
>roda poi S cu P
>
>ro lo S cu P
>
>ro S cu P
>
>I have argued several times over a quarter century that at least one 
>of these (I like {roda poi S}) should be used in the existential 
>import sense, so that, say, {roda poi S cu P} entails {dapoi S cu P}.

I don't think that that will work, since "ro lo" is really equivalent 
to "ro da poi ke'a" and not "ro da poi". For example, "everything I 
want to eat" would have to be "ro da poi mi djica le nu citka ke'a", 
and can't be converted to a "ro lo" form.

For a universal quantifier with existential import, I think we can 
use "rosu'o"/"su'oro", parallel to "roci", etc. for "all three". (Is 
there any convention for which number goes first in these compound 
quantifiers?)

(The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have 
existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399])

mu'o mi'e adam