Re: On {lo} and existence

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > Under position [3], the one I've attributed to Lojbab,
> > {lo broda naku broda} can be true (and meaningful, and not
> > a violation of veridicality),
> Ok, if you accept that, then it may be coherent. But then {lo broda}
> does not have to be an actual (this world) broda.

That is exactly the point, yes.

> I'm bewildered by such an ample concept of veridicality. In some
> other universe, every ninmu is a nanmu, so {lo ninmu cu nanmu} is
> actually true, against previous belief.

No, I think it's either certainly or probably false.
I assume that by default every bridi is {dahinai}, unless there
is overt {dahi}. So {lo ninmu cu nanmu} = {dahinai lo ninmu cu
nanmu}, which says:

   [In some universe, Ex x is a woman] and [in this universe,
    x is a man]

Perhaps if we allow this universe to contain individuals who
also exist in other universes, that could be true. It depends
on your metaphysics, so Lojban should be neutral on this
matter.

> So you are accepting that {ro broda cu broda} can be false.
> To me, that is an abomination.

I am accepting it can be false. I don't see why it's an
abomination. I don't even find it counterintuitive.

> > If something is a rock in some world other than this
> > one, then it cannot be kicked in this world, although it can be
> > described or dreamt of in this world, and it can be kicked in that world
> > where it is a rock.
> The question is whether it can be called {lo rokci}.
> You must choose, either it can't be called {lo rokci} or it is
> false that {ro rokci} is kickable.

It can be called {lo rokci} in the universe where I draw it,
if can be kicked in the universe it exists in.

pc:
> BTW dreams are another classic opaque context, so And's example
> is not a problem.

It is a problem in the sense that the opaque contexts we've
studied so far arise from the presence of a subordinate bridi
in the semantics (the duhu) but not the syntax (the seduhu).
The solution is to bring the subordinate bridi into the
syntax.

This solution is not available for dreamt of objects.

pc:
> Ahah! now I see (again, I think) the situation about _lo_ and _da
> poi_.  _da_poi_ does not refer to anything, it is a quantifier
> phrase, a syncategorematic, a piece of logical appratus, not a
> content expression.  _lo_ phrases do refer to things, they are
> descriptions on a par with _le_ descriptions and the like.

I don't agree with this. If "Ex broda(x)" refers, then both
{lo} and {da poi} refer, and if it doesn't refer, then neither
refer.

> jorge:
> Those statements don't cause trouble because they are quantified
> by {ro}."All elves are humanoid" can be true even if there are no
> elves, and can also be part of a definition even if there are no
> elves.
> pc:
> Whoa! if the quantification is _ro_da_poi_broda_ or just plain
> _ro_broda_ then it does entail that there are broda; we set it up
> that way.

So I can't truthfully say {ro da poi nalci be mi cu blanu}
"each of my wings is blue"?

> The only "All elves" that does not is whatever has become of
> _ro_da_kanoi_da_<elf>_ki_

??

> Besides, for definitions we have _lo'e_ (or whatever "the typi-
> cal" is), which has all essential properties and an average value
> for all non-essential ones.

We haven't agreed on what {lohe} means. And the meaning that at
least Jorge & I eventually agreed to agree on would not suffice
for definitions.

Jorge:
> All I now need is to know whether I'm right in believing that:
>        naku lo broda cu brode
>        It is not the case that at least one broda is a brode.
> is exactly equivalent to:
>        ro lo broda naku cu brode
>        For every broda, it is not the case that it is a brode.
> If yes (as I believe and I'm sure that at least John Cowan agrees),

I think yes.

> then there can be no argument that {da poi broda} is equivalent to
> {lo broda}, just as {roda poi broda} is equivalent to {ro broda}.

I think neither of these equivalences hold. (I have decided to
assume option [3] on my list of possible meanings for {lo}, on
the grounds that it is most consistent with current usage.)

If not, then how does {lo broda} interact with negation?

> I agree that {pavyseljirna} should not have two different
> definitions. I'm saying that once we agree on what is its
> definition, then {lo pavyseljirna} and {da poi pavyseljirna}
> refer to the same thing.

Can the following both be true at the same time?

  {mi skicu lo nalci be mi}
  {no da nalci mi}

I want these both to be true at the same time.

---
And