Howsabout going back = to the basics of "any" in English? It is a context leaper, a universa= l embedded in a verso context with scope over the whole in which the contex= t is subordinate. So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x. Not, notice= , {mi sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense, not the property= sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled if I were to have= (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every green thing fits an= d none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would have"). This s= till supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD, so the p= roperty sense is still better. Of course, spelling out the counterfac= tual stuff in such a way as to make the quantifier scope points clearer wou= ld be nice, too, but no one seems to like {tu'a} and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.

From:= v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
S= ent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching

Yes, we still don't have an "any" in lojban.
We discussed that for the l= ast 3 weeks.

Still, I don't see that {mi sisku lo crino} fails to me= an the right thing
- given that we don't have an "any". If you think tha= t is the problem, go
back to the last discussion and continue it -
It= means something like "I'm looking for something that is green".

Tal= king about existence again. The {lo crino} introduces {da poi crino}
int= o the context. This, however, does in my opinion not need to be a
specif= ic _physical_ item at this moment. The {da} is one object in the
univers= e of discourse, which _only_ has the primitive property {da crino} for now.=
This object in the UD does not have to map to a physical object(talking= about unicorns)
and might also have multiple physical objects it _can_ = map to.
Looking for (any)something green, you _do_ have an object, in th= e sense
of an element in the universe of discourse, in mind. Namely,
an item, whos only relevant property is being green.
If some= one points you to a blade of grass and you are not satified with it,
the= n you have additional constraints which you didn't mention up to then.
S= till, you can go on and specify {go'i fe lo crino creka} or something like = that,
adding more specific properties to the object in the UD and theref= ore
restricting the possible physical objects it can refer to.

If= you have a specific item in mind, on the other hand, surly you can
just= say {mi sisku le crino} and there are no problems with that.

On the= basis of this interpretation, it seems to work out well,
to say {mi sis= ku lo crino} if you mean to say that you are looking
for something green= .

{ma pinka}

v4hn

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:09:04= AM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote:
> Look at the "any" discussion, as it's = the same idea. {lo crino} can very
> well have only one referent, even if there are many green things in the UD.
> It *shoul= dn't *have only one referent, if the distinction matters to you as
> = the speaker; that's (part of?) what {le} is for. But it can anyway. This> means you can't say "I'm looking for a green thing" and be absolutely=
> certain that your listener knows you don't care which one (without= a
> separate bridi).
>
> mi'e la latro'a 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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--1789658926-987295763-1357872173=:57379--