Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qlm6c-00005LC; Sat, 17 Sep 94 01:50 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0118; Sat, 17 Sep 94 01:48:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0114; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:48:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1475; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:47:28 +0200 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 18:51:11 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2378 Lines: 66 la lojbab spusku di'e > JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that > JL>I need it". > > No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly > one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of > the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed, > and it veridically is a box. Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the biggest. Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes (the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three? > I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se nitcu mi" Yes, but I thought that {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means exactly that. Does {mi ponse pa tanxe} mean the same as {pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se ponse mi}? If so (as I think) then why should it work for {ponse} and not for {nitcu}? > "lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if > you select a specific number of them less than 'all'. I agree that it is non-specific. The issue is whether it is "identifiable" or "non-identifiable" (probably the wrong technical terms). > But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo", > and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the > benefit of R Holmes). I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever". mi nelci loi xruli I like flowers doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it? Why should mi nitcu loi xruli I need flowers mean that I need any flower whatsoever? I don't think there's any problem with {lo} either. The only problem is that we don't have any easy way to refer to that sense of "any". (Something like "ajn" in Esperanto.) I think that either a PA with that sense, or an attitudinal like {po'o} could be the answer. Abstractions work too, in the sense that I can say: mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe I need that I have a box. and I suppose this is the sort of problem that made {djica} unable to take a simple object. But I don't like that solution, because it is either too complicated, forcing you to use {ponse} or some other relationship when you don't want to, or it is too ambiguous {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe}. There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever." Jorge