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 m0ql36g-00005LC; Thu, 15 Sep 94 01:47 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8526; Thu, 15 Sep 94 01:45:46 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8524; Thu, 15 Sep 1994 01:45:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1008; Thu, 15 Sep 1994 00:44:30 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 15:45:57 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: Re: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 2328 Lines: 52 Chris Bogart said: How to say "I need a box [any-box-whatever]" has been bugging me all day. ************************ deletions If "lo tanxe" is the sumti, it is inherently quantified as "there exists some thing-which-is-a-box", which isn't what we want, since it's more of a hypothetical box. The kind of box I need may not even exist! *******************deletions Essentially we would be circumventing the ambiguity of wanting "any box" by specifying precisely what specific (abstract) thing we DO want, which is the property/ability of boxing things up. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** Djer says, Chris says, "........[the] specific (abstract) thing we DO want ... is the property/abilty of boxing things up." Well, here goes my try: i. mi nitcu le su'u me le tanxe me'u da kei What this means to me is: I need the (in-mind) abstraction of boxing up (something that exists). If you don't want to make "things" existent you could use zo'e in place of da. If su'u is too nonspecific you could use ka or nu as you suggested. I still have a lot of doubt as to what "me" actually does. By definition it turns a sumti (here, le tanxe) into a selbri. But what exactly the x1 and x2 of the resulting selbri are is unclear to me. In English when a noun is turned into a verb by the subtraction of an -er suffix, i.e. "goer--> go", any ordinary subject or object can be used. Is x1 of "me le tanxe" a person or machine that boxes things, and is x2 a place for anything boxed? In other words, can any appropriate items be used for the sumti of a selbri created by me conversion? The bare word tanxe seems to mean is_a_box. "me le tanxe" seems to mean, or I want it to mean, boxes, as a verb. This is not analogous to the English example above. Me did not function as an inversion operator but rather behaved as an operator which verbalized a "noun" into a transitive verbal form, as opposed to a simple existence assertion. Answers, anyone? djer jlk@netcom.com