From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Fri Apr 16 07:34:05 1999
X-Digest-Num: 116
Message-ID: <44114.116.632.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:34:05 -0300
From: "=?US-ASCII?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: di'e preti zo nu

la robin cusku di'e

>Consider the translation of {lo zarci} in the Book:
>"one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-markets".
>In this sense {mi nitcu lo tanxe} would mean "I need
>one-or-more-of-all-the-things-which-really are-boxes".

The problem with direct substitution of the English is that
the same English expression can have different meanings
in different contexts. It is easier to see it in logical notation:
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex, T(x) & N(I,x)
There is at least one x such that x is a box and I need x.
This is not equivalent to the colloquial "I need a box".

>I would see "There is a box that I need" as a near equivalent of "I
>need the box", since the defining relative clause implies a specific box.

Obviously I'm failing to get my point across with my glosses.
I meant the logical expression above, which is undoubtedly
what the Lojban means.

>I would
>therefore use {le tanxe} in both cases [note that I am slowly
>coming round to Jorge's view that specificity is more important
>than veridicality!].


If you say {mi nitcu lo tanxe}, all I need to understand is the
meaning of {tanxe} in order to understand what you mean.
I won't know which box you say you need, but I know you say
there is one that you need, and that is all you're saying.

If you say {mi nitcu le tanxe}, understanding the meaning
of {tanxe} is not enough to understand what you mean, I also
have to be able to work out from the context which is the
object that you're calling tanxe to understand what is it that
you say you need. If I can't, I'm forced to ask "which box?",
or {le ki'a tanxe}.

co'o mi'e xorxes