Received: from mail-qc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:44570) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T2M0q-0006KY-I0; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:51:02 -0700 Received: by qcac11 with SMTP id c11sf3943959qca.16 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=CzFpQ5McjFnoCj0hvyT7/jIeezefJrteJDuO+WZfbAE=; b=kkw+pzSu07FmTSl5Uhz03OtlB9c+SZ8Gb791bmsuc14cDBELczorxSAD8CLBJHJU84 3VZNZ+4yQwxd5Ucv2nJueQYG7jl17qajU8UmbPeXL/B9p8UqvyNCz6M3lBMkS7dOXPYV FWX6JesU4DfxOi64L3dsQmdGbvp7gDUNi6aJE= Received: by 10.52.180.202 with SMTP id dq10mr651722vdc.17.1345207845680; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.21.207 with SMTP id x15ls2678949vde.1.gmail; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.33.234 with SMTP id u10mr926914vei.28.1345207845052; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.33.234 with SMTP id u10mr926913vei.28.1345207845038; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c10si364658vdu.1.2012.08.17.05.50.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.54; Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id v11so3404148vbm.41 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.92.200 with SMTP id co8mr1952325vdb.131.1345207844913; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.238.129 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <44e6fb5c-91f3-47ba-817c-8560c9c6ca14@googlegroups.com> <502B9E61.8060808@gmx.de> <502BA634.3030007@gmx.de> <502C50EB.3090704@gmail.com> <5f1664a8-ea52-4a70-8cce-7beb0b626ad6@googlegroups.com> From: Paul Predkiewicz Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:50:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro} To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d05b0bec2f604c7759b4e X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --20cf307d05b0bec2f604c7759b4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspecific. also, i don't get your point. if i neither state nor point at which of those fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn't really matter. Even if there were lying an apple and an orange, if i tell my wife i wanted to eat something and she got no means to tell what i want, she would give me anything. I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anything" would be ok. Maybe not in all situations but if what i say is ambiguis, the person im talking to could still ask if i meant the apple, the orange, the cheese, which is in the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a beaver. 2012/8/17 tijlan > On 17 August 2012 12:41, Paul Predkiewicz > wrote: > > but its definition says "an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value > > which makes bridi true" which would be a good description for "anything" > > aswell, or wouldn't it? > > There can be a difference between "un/specified" and "un/specific". > One can have a physically specific but officially unspecified child, > for example. {zo'e} is to have an unspecified but not necessarily > unspecific value, it seems. Suppose there are an apple & an orange on > a table; you want to eat the apple; below would be a valid statement: > > mi djica lo nu citka zo'e > > {zo'e} is referring to whatever citka2 that makes the bridi true, > which in this case is specifically the apple. If there were nothing on > the table but you nevertheless wanted to eat something, the same > statement would again be valid, except that {zo'e} would this time be > referring to unspecific objects. > > > mu'o > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --20cf307d05b0bec2f604c7759b4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, i can't really see any difference between unspecified and unspeci= fic.

also, i don't get your point. if i neither= state nor point at which of those fruits i desire to eat, then it doesn= 9;t really matter. Even if there were lying an apple and an orange, if i te= ll my wife i wanted to eat something and she got no means to tell what i wa= nt, she would give me anything.

I still have the feeling using {zo'e} as "anyt= hing" would be ok. Maybe not in all situations but if what i say is am= biguis, the person im talking to could still ask if i meant the apple, the = orange, the cheese, which is in the fridge, or maybe the table if i was a b= eaver.


2012/8/17 tijlan <jbo= tijlan@gmail.com>
On 17 August 2012 12:41, Paul Predkiewicz <paul.predkiewicz@gmail.com> wrote= :
> but its definition says "an elliptical/unspecified value; has som= e value
> which makes bridi true" which would be a good description for &qu= ot;anything"
> aswell, or wouldn't it?

There can be a difference between "un/specified" and "= un/specific".
One can have a physically specific but officially unspecified child,
for example. {zo'e} is to have an unspecified but not necessarily
unspecific value, it seems. Suppose there are an apple & an orange on a table; you want to eat the apple; below would be a valid statement:

=A0 mi djica lo nu citka zo'e

{zo'e} is referring to whatever citka2 that makes the bridi true,
which in this case is specifically the apple. If there were nothing on
the table but you nevertheless wanted to eat something, the same
statement would again be valid, except that {zo'e} would this time be referring to unspecific objects.


mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--20cf307d05b0bec2f604c7759b4e--