From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu May 31 19:07:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 1 Jun 2001 02:07:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 81714 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.120) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2001 02:07:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 May 2001 19:07:35 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.33 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 02:07:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.33] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] quantifiers Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 02:07:35 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2001 02:07:35.0802 (UTC) FILETIME=[A034ADA0:01C0EA3F] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >I think that (ro lo su'o lo broda} collapses to {lo broda} I agree. But on the other hand {ro lo su'o broda} is indeed a universal with existential import: each of the at least one broda that there are. ><(The book seems to think that lojban universal claims have >existential import, ch. 16, sec. 8 [p. 399])> >Why, so it does! I can't help feeling that this statement is contradicted >elsewhere in the relevant sense. In the following section at least. The transformation {naku roda} into {su'oda naku} does not work if {ro} has existential import. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.