Message-Id: <m0qlsLt-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:28:13 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi
              je'i
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2721
Lines: 65

JL>This is sidestepping the issue, though. I still would like to say
JL>"I need a box" without having to specify what I need it for.

Then you want to use "le
tanxe" and not "lo tanxe" or "pa tanxe" which is related to "lo tanxe"
(specifically "pa lo tanxe".

"pa le tanxe" means one of 'the' boxes I have in mind.  I may not be able
or willing to specify all the relevanmt properties of "le tanxe", but at
least it is possible to ask me if it isn;t clear.

Whenever you use "lo" you are, at least logically, not constarining the set
any more than is indicated by restrcitions you provide.

JL>Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the
JL>biggest.
JL>
JL>Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
JL>(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?

I think the latter.  You want
mi nitcu le pa le ci tanxe

JL>> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
JL>> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
JL>> benefit of R Holmes).
JL>
JL>I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".

JL>        mi nelci loi xruli
JL>        I like flowers
JL>
JL>doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?
JL>
JL>Why should
JL>
JL>        mi nitcu loi xruli
JL>        I need flowers
JL>
JL>mean that I need any flower whatsoever?

Because you have massified the set "lo'i xrula", and any portion of that
mass will suffice.  Now this is logic - when you say "I want water", you
will not be satisfied by poisoned water, or water embedded in the crystalline
structure of a hydrated rock, etc.  So pragmatics may give SOME limits here.
But logically at least, "loi xrula" refers to ALL flowers.

"lei xrula" refers to a more specific set of flowers, like "le xrula" would.

(I think that when the Trobriand Islanders consider all rabbits to be an
instance of Mr Rabbit, they do have some pragmnatic restruictions as well -
I doubt that they consider a dead, cut-up rabbit in their stew as being
EXACTLY the samne thing as the one sitting in the field, but linguistically
they may not make the distinction - I wouldn't know for sure, though.
Similarly, there are pragmatic restrictions on "lo djacu" or "lo tanxe".
I suspect that this would best be dealt with by restricting the universe of
discourse intensionally, in which case 'all flowers' does not refer to
every flower that ever existed anywhere, and 'water' doesn;t refer to the
scattered molecules in interstellar space.)

Given these kind of pragmatic restrictions, "lo"
can serve the purpose needed.  But "lo broda" still is NOT the
same as "da poi broda" in that it doesn;t claim that "broda" really exists.

lojbab