From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Feb 28 11:43:08 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oqP9-0004bi-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:42:47 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1SJgjl08217 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:42:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:42:45 -0500 (EST) From: Invent Yourself To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: <20030228193008.GA17252@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: <20030228143330.H4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4240 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:21:58PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > And as I said to Craig, no, I don't. I agree that there exists some > > > thing that you need. The scope of your need is still undefined. > > > > > > What can I say? It's wrong. Using da to mean something that you have > > in mind would make da specific. And it would make lo specific. But lo > > is not specific. I think even Jordan would agree with this; he once > > tried to convince me that even when da was limited to refer to a > > single item, it STILL isn't specific! > > > > > > > You never answered my question, by the way. Do you believe that "da > > > poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim." means that any human, including > > > the blind ones, can see Jim? > > > > > > If I endorse Craig's post, and Craig shows that the poi clause limits > > the valid range of da, then therefore I agree with you here. So yes: > > explicitly-given context circumscribes the range of da. I didn't > > answer it because that's not what's being disputed here. > > You've just contradicted yourself. Either context constrains da or it > doesn't. If I need a doctor because I have cataracts, an > otolaryngologist is of little use. But then, you don't ask for lo mikce. You ask for le mikce, or for lo mikce poi li'o. "I need any doctor that can deal with cataracts". You don't have a specific doctor or set of doctors in mind, though. > Saying that the context must be explicit violates a long-held tenet of > lojban: that unfilled places can contain anything that continues to make > the sentence valid (in this case we're talking about the x3 of nitcu). Chapter six makes it clear to me that lo is used for, and only for non-specific descriptions. I think we can filter out stupid choices for da with context. For instance, a dead doctor is nonetheless lo mikce, but I don't want a corpse giving me a checkup. So, I think that da is nonspecific across members of the set that's been filtered for ridiculous values. -- What would Jesus bomb?