Re: On {lo} and existence

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

pc writes, lapsing into bastard TLI Loglan:

> >         we set it up
> >         that way.  The only "All elves" that does not is whatever has
> >         become of _ro_da_kanoi_da_<elf>_ki_ and that is because of
> >         _kanoi_, not _ro_ (and even it implies the rather wimpy _da_
> >         _kanoi_ etc.).

Jorge, understandably bewildered, says:

> I've no idea what _kanoi_ would be, but Lojban's {noi} does precisely
> the opposite, i.e. it does make an incidental claim therefore requiring
> existence, as in {ro da noi broda}.

By "kanoi...ki" pc means "ganai...gi".  And I think he is wrong: "ro broda"
doesn't entail existence.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.