From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Sep 3 07:39:47 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 3 Sep 1993 11:41:32 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 3 Sep 1993 11:41:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199309031541.AA05740@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8955; Fri, 03 Sep 93 11:39:55 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4282; Fri, 03 Sep 93 11:42:50 EDT Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 11:39:47 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Mr Andrew Rosta's message of Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:06:01 +0100 Status: RO X-Status: >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:06:01 +0100 >From: Mr Andrew Rosta >X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET >If I remember right (probably not), a (long) while back Mark >wrote about waiting for a taxi - any taxi - to come along. Since >the taxi is non-specific, this rules out use of the le-series >- le karcrtaksi, lei karcrtaksi. >But "lo karcrtaksi" doesn't seem quite right, if it means >"there is some taxi such that M.S. was waiting for it" - >it suggests that a taxi for which Mark was not waiting could >have come along. And of course he wasn't waiting for every >taxi, either (or maybe he was?). My hazy recollection is that >Mark used "loi karcrtaksi" (the "loi" not the fukpi zei valsi) >- he was waiting for some manifestation of the mass of all X >such that X is a taxi. >If this works, it is useful for things like > I want/seek a book (to prop open the door) >mi sisku loi cukta > I want/seek a book (a particular one I'm halfway through reading) >mi sisku le cukta >Is this right? I know it was discussed earlier in the year by Iain >et al., but that discussion seems to have left scarcely any >trace in my memory. >----------------- >And As I recall, the point about {loi} for that purpose was made in a quote from JCB that John Cowan posted here (with allowances for Loglan words corresponding to {loi}). I agreed with it though, and it makes a certain amount of sense, if we can get away from thinking of masses as necessarily plural things. Shouldn't {loi} be able to mean "some instantiation of an indefinite (massified) class"? Or do I misremember? ~mark