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 m0qmS8R-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 22:42 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qmS8R-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2748; Sun, 18 Sep 94 22:41:24 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2744; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:41:24 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6645; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 21:40:11 +0200
Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:42:16 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: Even worse!
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 505
Lines: 16

> Has it occurred to any of you that "I need a box" can be true while
> "I need box A" may be false of each specific box A (because some other
> box would do just as well?)  There is really no quantification over
> boxes going on in this sentence!!!
>
>                                         --Randall Holmes

Exactly!

That's precisely the difference I propose between {mi nitcu xe'e tanxe}
and {mi nitcu lo tanxe}.

For the latter to be true, "I need box A" has to be true for at least one A.


Jorge