Message-Id: <m0qmRw9-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:30:39 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: any and all
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1685
Lines: 40

lojbab:
> I think part of the trouble we are having is that in English we DON'T say
> "I need any box."  I cannot fathom what someone wouyld mean by this without
> context.

The meaning we're trying to say in Lojban is:

"Of all the things that are boxes, I have the need to use or own or have at
my disposal one of them. I don't at all care which one it is, just any of
them all."

We could translate the whole phrase, but the question is, does {mi nitcu
pa tanxe} mean that? You say it does (at least some of the time you say that)
but I'm trying to convince you that it doesn't.

What I think {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means is:

"Of all the things that are boxes, there is one in particular that I need.
I'm not being specific about which one it is, but there is only one that
will do, even though I'm telling you nothing about which one it is. Only
one is in the {nitcu} relationship with {mi}"

So, it also makes sense to say {pa remna cu mamta mi} = "Of all the humans
that there are, one of them, and only one of them, is my mother. I'm not
telling you which one, just that it is one of all humans. Not just anyone."

> The real probalem is that, as we have generally found in Lojban, very
> few people
> ever really make statements that go over into quantificational logic very
> well, because the quantificational versions (claiming existence and exactness
> of numbers and restriction, etc) rarely  accurately state the contextual
> intent.

Are you saying that since we'll get it wrong anyway, we should forget about
logic and use the language like we would any other?

I know that we will do that, in any case, but it's fun to make the effort
to try to use it logically.

Jorge