From sentto-44114-18794-1046732479-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon Mar 03 15:02:33 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:02:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.65]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pywR-000300-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:01:51 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18794-1046732479-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2003 23:01:20 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 8907 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.156) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:01:19 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD692200:01C2E1D8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19 +0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4305 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la xod cusku di'e >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, jjllambias2000 wrote: > > > > Suppose that the folllowing are all true: > > > > la meris pendo la djan noi mikce > > la meris na pendo la fred noi mikce > > la meris na pendo la alis noi mikce > > > > Can we assert, based on that info, that: > > > > la meris pendo lo mikce > > > > ? Yes, Mary is friend to at least one doctor, namely > > John. That of course does not mean that Mary is friend to > > any doctor. > >"Is Mary the friend of any doctor at all? Does she have any friends who >are doctors?" > >"Why, yes, she is the friend of a doctor." Correct. > > If someone asks: > > > > xu la meris pendo lo mikce > > > > We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at > > least one doctor. > >How one can be a friend to a nonspecific doctor is hard to imagine. If you say "she is friendly to doctors" you are not saying that she is friendly to any specific doctor. > > Now, let's say that: > > > > la meris nitcu la djan noi mikce > > la meris na nitcu la fred noi mikce > > la meris na nitcu la alis noi mikce > > > > Can we assert, based on the above info, that > > > > la meris nitcu lo mikce > > > > ? Does Mary need at least one doctor? Yes, she does > > need at least one doctor. If someone asks: > > > > xu la meris nitcu lo mikce > > > > we will answer {go'i}. She needs at least one doctor, > > namely John. > > >But the John-ness is lost when you use lo mikce. Yes, certainly. >Under what circumstances, >assuming cooperative communication, would you say such a thing? Suppose Harry, who doesn't know John, wants to know whether Mary needs some doctor. He asks {xu la meris nitcu lo mikce}. I know that Mary needs John, who happens to be a mikce, so I must answer {go'i}. >Only if >there was no specific doctor identity to work with. Had there been a >specific doctor she needed, you surely would have used le instead. Not necessarily. In this case, the question was posed with {lo} and I have to answer {go'i} or {na go'i}. I only have to decide whether {la meris nitcu lo mikce} is true or false when Mary needs John, who happens to be a doctor. In traditional Lojban,the answer is unequivocally {go'i}. The way you want {lo} to work, which I would prefer too, the answer should be {na go'i} if Mary needs John, a doctor, to help her carry the boxes but is otherwise healthy and in no need for medical attention. >lo'e is a little heavy-handed. It achieves its nonspecificity by stripping >all distinction away from the doctors. "friendly to doctors" doesn't >necessarily apply to nontypical doctors, whereas lo mikce does include >them I use {lo'e} the way you say {lo} works, that's all I'm saying. {lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> New Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power. Get POP access, more storage, more filters, and more. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/