On Saturday, August = 25, 2012 5:10:27 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:

la gleki, On 25/08/2012 08:10:
>
>
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:08:51 AM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 20/08/2012 09:53:
>
> > On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:46:19 AM U= TC+4, And Rosta wrote:
> > So "mi citka ma kau" would mean not "I ea= t anything" but rather "I eat whatever it is that I eat" -- because "do dju= no lo du'u mi citka ma kau" means "Whatever it is that I eat, you know know= that I eat it" =3D "You know what I eat".
> >
> > That makes "mi citka ma kau" still possib= ly useful, but doesn't give us a way to say "I eat anything". For that, I s= uggest "ro da su'o mu'ei ku mi citka da", "ro da ka'e ku mi citka da", "I c= ould eat anything", or else "ro da ro mu'ei ku mi citka da", "I would eat a= nything".
> >
> > Two questions.
> > 1. Don't you think that it can mean "for = each specific x in a
> > possible world it's possible/necessary th= at I will eat it".
>
> It means "For each x, it is the case that in all/som= e circumstances/eventualities I will/would/can/could eat it". Which is what= "I will/would/can/could eat anything means", no?
>
> Please don't translate {su'omu'ei} as "...I will/would/can/could e= at it " because it explains nothing.

I translated it as "in some circumstances/eventualities"...

> Let's use your definition from the wiki for instance.
> /mi su'o mu'ei citka/=3D "... there are possible worlds wherein I = eat"
>
> Let's try to describe "da" which will mean some apples present in = our basket.
> We'll describe the situation *"I could eat any apple from that bas= ket"*.
> Let's take {ro da su'omu'ei ku mi mi citka da}. It will mean "For = each x which can mean different things in different possible worlds I eat t= his x".
> However, "I could eat any of these apples" describes the apples pr= esent in this world.

Those same apples exist in infinitely many worlds.

> "any" in this sentence means that the choice is distributed over r= eal
> apples, not over what each apple turns into in some possible world= s.

That's not what "any" itself means. The apples in question remain the s= ame across possible worlds.

"ro da poi me le plise zo'u mi su'o mu'ei citka da" means "Each of thes= e applies is such that there is some possible world/circumstance/eventualit= y in which I eat it".

> In other words, "da su'omu'ei ku" can mean one specific object tha= t
> can be other than apple but "da su'omu'ei ku" doesn't express that
> these options refer only to the set of apples present in this
> basket.

No, but "da poi me le plise" does. Your problem has to do with the lack= of restriction on da, not on the introduction of "suo'o mu'ei".

> I'd express our situation as {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'a plise = pe
> ti poi lanka}> And {mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo su'anai plise pe t= i poi
> lanka} - describes some specific apples present in this basket. = =3D "I
> could eat some specific apples (that I have in mind) present in th= is
> basket".

Delete {su'a} because it adds nothing to the logical form:

{mi su'omu'ei ku citka lo plise pe ti poi lanka [ke'a]}

Your sentence(s) mean "I could eat the basketed apple(s) here". It does= n't have the "any" meaning (except to the extent that it's included within = the broad interpretation of {lo}).

--And.