Re: On {lo}, and on nonexistence

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> Here are a number of incompatible positions on {lo}.
>
> [1] {lo broda} = {da poi broda}

This is the one I favour.

> [2] {lo broda} = >0% of broda (i.e. {pisu'o ro broda}, taken individually
>                  rather than as a mass})
>                  [={pisu'o ro da poi broda}]

{pisu'o ro} means the same as {piro}, because "at least all" is the same
as "all". I don't think you can talk of percentages with quantifiers unless
you are talking of a mass, or fractions of an individual.

> [3] {lo broda} = {da poi da'i broda} (i.e. "that which is a broda, but
>                  not necessarily in this universe")

I comment on this one below.

> [4] {lo broda} = +specific +veridical (this I surmised from a reccent
>                  posting from pc is what he thinks {lo} should be, but
>                  in The Compendium he advocates [3], so maybe I
>                  misunderstood his recent remarks)
> Note that there exist alternative {lo}-less ways of expressing
> [1], [2], [3] (using {da poi da'i(nai)} and {pisuho ro}).
> (In a sense, [4] is therefore a good choice, since there is no
> alternative way of expressing +specific +veridical, but since I
> am hugely skeptical about the meaningfulness or utility of
> veridicality, I would not myself wish to choose [4].)

I am equally skeptical about veridicality. For veridicality to have
any effect on usage we should choose [4], but I certainly would not
choose it either.

> I should also like to add a note on nonexistence. If I am writing
> fiction, and I say "the elf entered the room", then the elf is
> +real - "that which is an elf in this universe", where this universe
> is the fictional one. I think we can all agree on this. There is
> no problem here.

Agreed.

> But that sort of example is a bit of a red herring. Here is a more
> relevant one, which I repeat from previous recent postings.
>
>     I described a book I'd dreamt of.
>
> - the book in question may not exist in this universe, but even
> if it doesn't exist in this universe it is still posssible for
> me to describe it in this universe.

You could always argue that the x5 of the cukta was the stuff that
dreams are made of. I think the problem, if any, lies in the definition
of {cukta}. Is that book that you dreamed about a member of {lo'i cukta
beda beide beidi beidaxipa}? If yes, then you can make claims about
{lo cukta} that apply to it. If not, then those claims will be false.
Perhaps it wasn't a cukta after all, but a cukta te senva. If lo'i cukta
does count it among its members, then there's no problem.

In any case {lo cukta} would be equivalent to {da poi cukta}.

> So here is the sort of case where it matters whether a sumti is
> +real or +/-real (not-necessarily-real).
>
> In this case, I should like it to be settled whether {da poi broda}
> means {da poi da'inai broda} (that which is a broda in this universe)
> or {da poi da'i broda} (that which is a broda in some universe, but
> not necessarily the one this discourse is located in). Comments by
> pc in The Compendium indicate to me that he would be willing to
> countenance either, as would I (for what that's worth), but I should
> like to see the question settled.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the da'i one leads to contradiction,
unless {lo broda naku broda} can be true (so much for veridicality).

Jorge