[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Friday 01 March 2002 16:49, pycyn@hidden.email wrote:
> The other day on the main list (I think), Cowan actually committed
> himself to a distinction between universal quatifiers with
> existential import and those without. While details are fuzzy, it
> seems that quantifiers that govern variables explicitly, do not
> have existential import, those that attach directly to {lo} or a
> bridi do, the models being symbolic logic and traditional logic
> respectively.
Glad to hear it. I was not happy with the theory of universal
quantifiers with existential import, since I am accustomed to being
able to say "all even primes greater than two" and the like, or
pointing out that the set {x | ~x=x}, i.e. the set of all things not
identical with themselves, is empty. I'll have to wait until I see
the rest of the details of "ro lo" before I express an opinion on it.
My opinion will not be based on an idea of which version is correct.
We are dealing in axioms here, not theorems, and certainly not truth.
It will depend on the simplicity or complexity of the transformation
rules.
Still, I expect that I can live with this grammar, even though it
appears weird to me, as long as "ro da" behaves the way I prefer.
--
Edward Cherlin
edward@hidden.email
Does your Web site work?