Re: existential quantification

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> I have been told, in the last few months, that "nu" doesn't entail
> its complement bridi is true, but I should have thought that the
> existentially quantifying preceding "lo" does require there to
> be an event.
> Have I gone wrong?
> What is the solution?

In one sense you are right, in another sense you are wrong (as you might
expect).  Saying "lo nu" = "da poi nu" does entail that the event exist.
However, an event can exist independently of whether the encapsulated bridi
actually happens.  Thus, you can speak of "lo nu mi ninmu" even though you
are not a woman.  To assert that some event actually takes place, use
"fasnu":

	da poi nu mi nanmu cu fasnu

So I think that your proposed use of "si'o" is not necessary.
This is not official, merely my opinion.

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