Message-Id: <m0qm5zO-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 15:58:41 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: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3672
Lines: 105

la lojbab cusku di'e

> "lo tanxe" is NOT the same thing as "da poi tanxe";

This, I think, is to avoid problems in case no tanxe exists. But it doesn't
solve the "any" problem.

It seems to me that the problem with {nitcu} is different, and has little
to do with whether boxes exist or not.

> Now "mi nitcu pa tanxe", which is NOT restricted, does say that ANY member
> of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' will satisfy your
> need.

Using that same logic, you would conclude that "mi ponse pa tanxe" says
that ANY member of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' is
owned by you.

Let's say I have three boxes, one red, one blue, and one purple with
little pink flowers, and _any_ of them will serve for whatever purpose
they are needed.

Now you say {mi nitcu pa tanxe}

And I ask {xu do nitcu le xunre tanxe}

What should the answer be?

If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is true, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
also true, then it was false that {do nitcu pa tanxe}, because we've
shown that {do nitcu re tanxe} is true.

If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is false, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
also false, then we could go over the list for every existing box and
it would be false for all of them, then {do nitcu pa tanxe} would be
false, because we couldn't find any {pa tanxe} that made it true.

But there should be a true utterance to express that you need a (any) box,
without commiting to claiming that you need a (certain) box.


> I beleive that the distinction is
>
> mi djica lo bloti poi falnu se catke
> I  want  a  boat which is sail-pushed (I hope that will do for sloop in this
>                                         example)
>      which does not claim that such a boat exists

Does {mi ponse lo bloti poi falnu se catke} claim that such a boat exist?
What's the difference?


Now for {loi}.

I think that {mi nitcu loi tanxe} might be at least part of the solution,
but I'm confused with the quantification of {loi}.

{piro loi tanxe}, the whole mass of boxes, has all the properties of its
members and then some more.

If I needed that red box over there, then it would be true that {mi nitcu
piro loi tanxe}, because since I need a member, I need the whole mass by
extension.

If I need any one box whatsoever, then the property of being needed by me
is not a property of any single one of the members, so it's not a property
that {piro loi tanxe} receives from them, but it well could be one of the
emergent mass properties. This makes some sense, if I need a box then I have
need of mass box, so {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe} is true.

It still doesn't tell me much, because it could be that what I need is that
red box there, so I didn't transmit the fact that any old box will do.

Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?
For example, can we say

        pimu loi remna ka'e se jbena
        Half of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth

Is it different from

        piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
        All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth

The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?

And supposing that {pimu loi remna} inherits only the properties of
half of all humans. Is it any arbitrary half, or is it certain half
(e.g. those humans that are female)?


And asks:

> If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
> "we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?

No, and that's an excellent question. (I think reloi gives you two masses
of taxis.)


Jorge