From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Fri Apr 16 17:05:04 1999 X-Digest-Num: 117 Message-ID: <44114.117.651.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:05:04 -0300 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" mi nitcu lo tanxe noi cumki zasti > - i need a box which may exist > >& is it not true that any reference to "lo tanxe" could be a reference >to "lo tanxe noi cumki zasti" whose property of possible-existance has >simply not been mentioned? I don't think this has to do with zasti-existence. When I say {mi nitcu lo tanxe} I am claiming that there is some object, existent or non-existent, I don't care, but such that between that object (of which it must be true that it is a tanxe) and {mi} the relationship {nitcu} holds. If there is no such object of which it can be said to be in relationship {nitcu} with {mi}, then I can't make that claim. (I'm not sure what I would need a non-existent box for though.) >lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a > - the lion dwells in africa > >lo'e tanxe cu se nitcu mi > - the box is needed by me > >i'm sure you don't want to assert that the box is needed by you in the >same sense that the lion dwells in africa! No, I don't. That's why I said from the start that my use of {lo'e} is not what can be deduced from its definition. I use {lo'e} because it's the only article that refers to an abstraction rather than to actual objects, but I don't really want the restriction of typicality. I would say that the sentences above are not so much statements about "the lion" and "the box", but rather about Africa and me: lo'e cinfo cu xabju le fi'ortu'a Africa is lion-inhabited. mi nitcu lo'e tanxe I am box-needful. I know that this is not how {lo'e} has been defined, but having to choose between misusing {lo} or misusing {lo'e} I choose the second, because {lo} already has a well defined logical function, and I don't find {lo'e} all that useful if restricted to the typical. co'o mi'e xorxes