But the issue is, why create an = ad hoc or experimental cmavo for this when it is handled well enough (i.e.,= logically perfectly) by what we have? Your conversation doesn't appe= ar to pertain to the issue ("any" does not occur, for example). In th= e simplest terms -- to get back to the main point (I thought), the differen= ce you want is between the {[su'o] da poi cidja} inside (indefinite) = or outside (definite but one stated) the {lo nu terve'u da}.
I stil= l don't see how either {le} or {lo} is or was related to attitudinals, but = clearly they are not now, since {le} as {zo'e voi} is exactly parallel to {= lo} as {zo'e noi} (I would have thought {poi}, but then I don't know what {= zo'e} means, anyhow).
If you mean by "'can' and 'any' are related" that = the the modal context of "can" is one of the places where "any" is an appro= priate (even more clear) way "some" (or, from a different point of view, "a= ll"), then you are right, but the rules about "any" are basically the same = regardless of which context is involved, modal or negative or ... . I suspe= ct you just not yet comfortable with using these rules in Lojban.

From: la glek= i <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

On Monday, August 27, 2012 9:05:26 PM UTC+= 4, clifford wrote:

"Give me three specific apples from the basket" seems to assume we ha= ve agreed (or, at least, I think we have) on which ones, so {ko fi mi dunda= fe le ci plise} (dropping extraneous frills). Not the same as the pr= evious case at all.

Yes, if we = create ad-hoc cmavo {su'ai} it will look like

da su'ai - any (doe= sn't matter what exactly apples I need)

da su'ainai - some specif= ic apples

1.- Where are you going?

2.- T= o buy some food [some specific food, namely apples but I haven't tell you y= et]

3.- Well, I can buy food for you myself

4.- N= o, I need some specific food. Apples.

5.- Ah, I see.

In 2. we could use {da}/{cidja}.

I= n 4. we could use {da su'ainai}/{cidja sua'inai}

I don't see= how xorlo -- widely appealed to but poorly understood -- affects this poin= t, since it did not change the specific (or was it definite?) status of { l= e}. The thought that {le} is somehow related to attitudinals (but {lo} is n= ot?) needs some developing to be clear.

Now it's history. I guess both {lo}/{le} worked like attitudinals. But now= {lo}=3D{zo'e noi} so we need to find another better way of solving this pr= oblem.

So does the notion that possible worlds are involved in all this essentially. I am no longer sure what problem {ro da zo'u mi su= 'omu'ei citka da} solves, if any (the relative scopes {ro da} and {su'o mu'= ei} can be disputed), but, if it is "I can eat anything", then the {zo'u} i= s indispensable. But the possible worlds come from the "can", not "an= y", and it is they that require the prenex form.

I'm pretty sure that in this case and in these meanings "= can" and "any" are related.

I am not sure how {e'o} wo= rks in all this, if it has any effect at all beyond politeness. And I= assume you mean to take one of the four possible subsets in each world, no= t in all of them.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 27, 2012, a= t 11:00 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On M= onday, August 27, 2012 7:14:28 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
la gleki, On 27/08/2012 05:34:
>
>
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 10:58:19 PM UTC+4, And Rosta wrote:
>
> la gleki, On 25/08/2012 15:23:
> > OK. Please translate
> >
> > "I could eat some specific apple from tha= t basket, namely the yellow (all the others are red)"
>
> "mi su'o mu'ei citka le plise je se lanka be ta"
>
> > "I could eat any apple from that basket".
>
> "ro da poi ge plise gi se lanka ta zo'u mi su'o mu'e= i citka da"
> >
> 1. So "Give me any three apples from the basket!" would be {ro da = poi
> plise zo'u ko su'omu'ei dunda ci da}?

I think that means "For every bunch of apples, make it the case that yo= u could give me three out of the bunch.

For "Give me any three apples", I'd suggest "e'o do dunda mi lo plise c= imei", or "e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise". Maybe "ko dunda" would do, but= afaik scope of ko isn't defined.

"e'o do mi dunda ci da poi plise" - it= 's not Loglan. {dunda - x1 [donor] gives/donates gift/present x2 to recipie= nt/beneficiary x3 [without payment/exchange].}

So = it should be "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

=
Now translate "Give me three (specific) apples" - it will again = be translated as "e'o do fi mi dunda fe ci da poi plise".

When I suggested
da - some/any
da su'a - any
da= su'anai - some specific

I was hintin= g at a scale (specific/ non-specific). It's something that was completely l= ost after xorlo reform ({le} meant some objects that I have in mind and the= refore worked much like an attitudinal. I'm not suggesting restoring pre-xo= rlo rules, of course).

I must acknowledge that {ro da zo'u mi su'omu'ei citka da} solves the problem (and I want exa= ctly this sentence rephrased without {zo'u} like it's possible to do in Eng= lish).
But if adding {e'o} turns it into "For every bunch of= apples, make it the case that you could give me three out of the bunch."
then it's not a solution.

"any" (in this = sense) is {su'o} number of apples from the set in the basket.
If we have 4 apples (numbered from 1 to 4) then "Give me three = apples from the basket" would mean in all possible worlds ({romu'ei} ?)&nbs= p;one of the following:
123
124
134
234

So here "Give me any three apples" =3D "In ev= ery possible world give me exactly three apples out of the 4 from that bask= et."

There's no single Lojban word corresponding to English _any_. But there= are Lojban sentences expressing the meaning of English sentences that cont= ain _any_.

> So in every possible world I'm asking for three {da}?

No.

> 2. Is it possible to get rid of {zo'u}?

In your Lojban? I can't a way, but maybe I'm being slow.

--And.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msg/lojban/-/FyxBrUzWluQ= J.
=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/ group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/2mX0GCr8M5IJ.
=20 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.