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 m0qpRaQ-000024C; Tue, 27 Sep 94 03:44 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2715; Tue, 27 Sep 94 03:44:16 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2712; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 03:44:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5844; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 02:41:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:04:35 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1218 Lines: 31 la veion cusku di'e > Say, we have a game of cards. You mix the deck of cards, take one > card and put it face down on the table. Until you turn the card > you have just ANY ONE of the cards. There is no way I can say > you don't have an ace. You can say it, and it will be either true or false. That you don't know whether it's true or false is another matter. You seem to be proposing that non-specific quantification (any outer quantification other than {ro}) be always treated as opaque. This is possible in theory, but then you can't use Lojban to make logical statements the way we usually understand them. > mi ponse ci tanxe > > If you express no restrictions (and no box is identified as belonging > to someone else) then any box up to the count of 3 can be said to > belong to you. > It's just sloppiness of usage if I say {mi ponse ci tanxe} when I > actually mean something like {mi ponse le ci vi tanxe}. I agree the two mean different things. In the second claim you are identifying the boxes. But even though you are not identifying them in the first claim, I think the claim says that the relationship holds for three of them that can (ka'e) be identified. Jorge