Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:17:24 +0100

>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 08/21/01 04:53pm >>>
#And Rosta wrote:
#> I must admit I haven't come across an exposition of the iota operator
#> such that I have understood exactly what it is.
#
#It is +veridical -definite -specific +singular: \iota x p(x) = "the one
#x such that p(x) is true (or nothing if there is no such x)".

Thanks. 
So in fact this defines cases where +/-specific (and hence +/-definite) 
is a noncontrastive distinction. It is in exactly these cases that I have
(on Jorge's suggestion) been experimenting with using {tu'o} as a
quantifier. Maybe my noises on this topic would have been better
received if I'd been calling for a "iota operator"!

#Russell's example: \iota x (x wrote _Waverly_) means "the (unique)
#author of _Waverly_" and refers to Walter Scott.

Strictly speaking I wouldn't use {tu'o} here, because the referent
of {x: x wrote _Waverly_} can vary across possible worlds.

#Typographical note: the iota is rotated 180 degrees.

I am always delighted to learn a new item of typological
pedantry, that I in turn can inflict it on others.

--And.

-- 
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com 
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan 
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel