From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 22:44:43 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:29:05 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4312; Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:25:53 EST Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id 4571; Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:25:53 EST Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:25:16 -0800 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Subject: Re: TECH: The meaning of existence X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:26:24 GMT." <9211201251.AA05717@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 20 00:25:16 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <3nh6IK-GEXP.A.sTE.bt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> I.Alexander.bra0122@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK writes, about "lo plise": > The second version makes it much clearer that what I'm interested > in is that there should be such an apple, irrespective of which one. May I suggest to add this aspect to the definition of "lo"? In other words, the referent of "lo plise" is at least one item which really is an apple, but the speaker doesn't care which one. It can easily be argued that the "da poi plise" interpretation of "lo plise" implies that the speaker doesn't care because there's no caring restriction on "da poi plise", but confusion is common enough to make it worthwhile to put the caveat in the definition explicitly. As with other articles, if "at least one" is inappropriate you can put on an explicit quantifier. -- jimc