Message-Id: <m0qmQpz-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 1994 14:20:02 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: 6975
Lines: 179

I think we are arguing in circles. I will state the problem and its
proposed solutions as I understand it, maybe to confuse things more.

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  or  "I need a box"
====================================================

Do we all agree that "I need a box" can have (at least) two meanings
in English, which in Quine's nomenclature are:

transparent: There exists a real, flesh and blood box (as it were), that
             can be seen and touched, and is needed by me. (This is not
             necessarily a specific box in the sense that the speaker is
             not identifying it in any other way than saying that it is
             a box, so it doesn't necessarily have to be {le tanxe}.)

opaque: I need that there be a box such that I can have it/use it/whatever.


The "normal" meaning in English is the opaque one for that phrase. When we
want to emphasize the transparent case we would say "I need certain box" or
something of the sort. (Which can still be the opaque case, if by "certain
box" all I mean is "certain kind of box".)

I hold that in Lojban {mi nitcu lo tanxe} has the tranparent meaning. This
is because Lojban predicates state relationships between objects/events.
In this case, the relationship {nitcu} is between that referred to as {mi}
and that referred to as {lo tanxe}: the speaker and a box (at least one).
{lo tanxe} does not specify which box it is, that would be {le tanxe}, but
it still refers to one of all the thing that are boxes, and the relationship
{nitcu} is claimed to hold between {mi} and that {lo tanxe}. This is Quine's
transparent meaning as I understand it.

Lojbab, on the other hand, said that it has the opaque meaning, but when
I translate And's:

> >   There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
>             da poi cukta zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
> Or, (but lojbab disagrees):
>             mi nitcu lo cukta

lojbab responds:

> I only disagree in that if And attaches significance to 'specific'
> (which I failed to notice in my own response to him), then it should
> be "le" rather than "lo" because "lo" is inherently non-specific

I don't think And was attaching the le/lo significance to it, so you are
agreeing with me, but you were disagreeing with the same claim in other
posts.

Now, if {mi nitcu lo tanxe} has the transparent meaning, how do we get
the opaque meaning that is the one we usually want?

(If it has the opaque meaning, then the problem is how do we convey the
transparent meaning, but since I don't believe that to be the case, I only
deal with the problem of trying to express the opaque meaning.)


PART II: THE SOLUTIONS(?)  or  Paraphrases, Masses and Anys.
============================================================

1 - Being very clear on what we mean.

One way is to paraphrase:

        mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
        I need to have a box.

or
        mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe
        I need some abstraction to do with a box.

The problem I have with those is that in the first case I'm saying
more than I want and in the second I'm saying less. This may be
unavoidable, I don't know.

In any case, I don't think anyone disagrees that this is a possibility.
The question is whether we are satisfied with the long-winded approach,
or do we want some elegant way of saying what we mean that is short and
to the point.

2 - Massification.

What does {mi nitcu loi tanxe} mean?

First we need to know what masses mean:

> JL>Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?
>
> Not much, if you are getting into truth functional statements.
> loi cifno lives in Africa, but also on every other continent.

Then I take it {loi cinfo} is NOT "ANY part of the mass of lions", since
it is false that any such part lives in Africa. It is rather "SOME (certain)
part of the mass of lions".

(That is what I understood originally, but lately I was confused.)

> "pimu" only works if EXACTLY half, not 1 more or less than half, of lions
> live in Africa.

Ok, but it would mean "certain half", not "any half".

> In real life we seldom know quantifiers that exactly when
> dealing with masses.

The "exactness" is totally irrelevant to my question. {ji'ipimu} would
have done just as well.

> JL>        piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
> JL>        All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
> JL>
> JL>The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
> JL>members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
> JL>the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?
>
> No it is not true.  The mass inherits all properties of its members, but the
> mass as a whole does not EXHIBIT those properties.

What does it mean that it inherits their properties, then?
What properties does the WHOLE mass exhibit? Only those exhibited by ALL of
its members?

In any case, if it is true that

        ji'ipimu loi remna ka'e se jbena
        Approx. half of humans can give birth.

then clearly {ji'ipimu loi remna} means "a certain half", and not "any half
whatsoever".

So {mi nitcu loi tanxe} = "Certain part of the mass of boxes is needed by me",
is not the solution to "I need a box".

I had changed my mind because in {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe}, the property of
beeing needed by me could be an emergent property of the mass of boxes. But for
this to make any sense, it should be true that {piro loi tanxe} exhibit the
properties of every single box.  Since it doesn't, I go back to my previous
opinion that {mi nitcu loi tanxe} doesn't work for this.

[Marginal note:

> Consensus has been that any quantifier greater than "pa"/"piro" on "loi"
> is nonsensical.

I agree that {re loi tanxe} is nonsensical. I could argue for {le re loi tanxe}
though... {piro loi blanu tanxe} and {piro loi xenru tanxe} for instance.

end marginal note]

3 - Please say something, anything...

"I need any box" is not completely equivalent to the opaque "I need a box".
The former implies the latter, but not viceversa. "I need any big box" also
implies "I need a box", and so on. In fact, "I need a box" could be very
restricted, and still have the opaque meaning: If I need a blue box of
size 10cm x 10cm x 10cm made of gold, I could still say "I need a box
(opaque sense)", but not "I need any box".

Using the proposed {xe'e}, "I need any box" would be {mi nitcu xe'e tanxe},
while "I need a box", if it doesn't mean any whatsoever, would have to
be {mi nitcu xe'e le tanxe} or something else.


PART III: CONCLUSIONS  or  We Are Still Where We Started
========================================================

* The only thing that really works, as far as I can tell, is to use
abstractions. Hopefully a less wordy solution can be found.

* Massification is not related to this issue, in my opinion.

* I still think something is needed to translate the "any whatsoever"
of English, but that won't completely solve the "I need a box" problem.

Anyway...


co'o mi'e xorxes