Re: logical issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.)

mi joi la xorxes. cusku be di'e casnu

> > Poof.  In fact, "mi se cmene zo xorxes" became true only when you joined
> > the Lojban community.
> 
> So {la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa} is false?

No, because "la xorxes." refers (as of now) to you during all periods of
your life.  If I changed my name to Fred Muggs, it would be correct to say
"Fred Muggs was born in 1958", but it would still be true that I wasn't
called Fred Muggs until 1995.

> > All claims are about stages; some stages may last
> > as long as the individual does.  To think otherwise is a residue of
> > essentialism.
> 
> Well, if you say {le gerku cu klama le zarci} and later {le gerku cu zvati
> le zarci}, are the referents of {le gerku} the same in both sentences?
> They are obviously different stages, so if they are the same something,
> that something is not the stages mentioned in each sentence.
> 
> Read again your sentence: "All claims are about stages; some stages may last
> as long as the individual does." What do you mean by "the individual"?
> Aren't you making a claim about it?

Yes.  However, I don't reify stages necessarily.  A claim about my toe is
a claim about me.

> I give up on arguing that "all" need not have existential import, since
> any claim I make about English will be suspect. I do claim that "todos"
> need not have existential import, and I don't see why {ro} should have.

Hear, hear.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.