From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 30 19:23:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 12056 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:36 -0000 Received: from m27-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.27] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15ROwp-0000QY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:07:52 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:22:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <10.101fa3f2.2892c499@aol.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" pc: > jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > wins?> > > As Lojbab says, during the freeeze, the book does. But I am not yet > convinced that this is such a case. It does raise an issue, much discussed > in the 70's, about the difference between identifying and relational uses of > quantifiers. That proved almost insoluble in formal logic, but can in fact > be solved easily in langauges meant for use. I am not sure that lojban has > done this very well and that may be the heart of issue here. Lojban does > certainly have a number of work-arounds that cover the problem, but does not > face it square on. What is this issue? That is, what are 'identifying' and 'relational' uses of quantifiers? --And.