From xod@thestonecutters.net Mon Mar 03 14:01:24 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 22:01:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 36431 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 22:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 22:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO granite.thestonecutters.net) (66.111.194.10) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 22:01:21 -0000 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h23M1OXd055735; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:01:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h23M1O65055732; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:01:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:01:23 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Any thread In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030303164408.X38820-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, jjllambias2000 wrote: > > Suppose that the folllowing are all true: > > la meris pendo la djan noi mikce > la meris na pendo la fred noi mikce > la meris na pendo la alis noi mikce > > Can we assert, based on that info, that: > > la meris pendo lo mikce > > ? Yes, Mary is friend to at least one doctor, namely > John. That of course does not mean that Mary is friend to > any doctor. "Is Mary the friend of any doctor at all? Does she have any friends who are doctors?" "Why, yes, she is the friend of a doctor." > If someone asks: > > xu la meris pendo lo mikce > > We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at > least one doctor. How one can be a friend to a nonspecific doctor is hard to imagine. > Now, let's say that: > > la meris nitcu la djan noi mikce > la meris na nitcu la fred noi mikce > la meris na nitcu la alis noi mikce > > Can we assert, based on the above info, that > > la meris nitcu lo mikce > > ? Does Mary need at least one doctor? Yes, she does > need at least one doctor. If someone asks: > > xu la meris nitcu lo mikce > > we will answer {go'i}. She needs at least one doctor, > namely John. But the John-ness is lost when you use lo mikce. Under what circumstances, assuming cooperative communication, would you say such a thing? Only if there was no specific doctor identity to work with. Had there been a specific doctor she needed, you surely would have used le instead. > That again does not at all mean that > Mary needs any doctor, all we are saying is that there > is at least one that she needs. > > The way Xod and Craig want to use {lo} is not how it has > been defined, but there certainly is a need for that other > meaning. I use {lo'e} for that other meaning, but I would > favour changing {lo} for that function, because it is > very frequent and basic. That would change the meaning > of {la meris pendo lo mikce} to "Mary is friendly to doctors", > a generic statement, rather than the concrete meaning "Mary > is friend to at least one doctor" that it has now. lo'e is a little heavy-handed. It achieves its nonspecificity by stripping all distinction away from the doctors. "friendly to doctors" doesn't necessarily apply to nontypical doctors, whereas lo mikce does include them -- What would Jesus bomb?