Message-Id: <m0qmkSg-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 19 Sep 1994 11:11:03 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: any answer
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1285
Lines: 38

la djer cusku di'e

> >From my previous post:
>
>         roda is our notation for the universal quantifier used in
>         connection with the variable x.   It is to be
>         read then as "for every object x".
>
>         roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da
>
>         says "for every object x such that x is a box, it is implied
>         that I want that object." That object is one box and I want
>         it.  Which one is not specified. There is no implication that a
>         box search is underway so that there is a recursive collection
>         formed of all boxes. You wouldn't do this with your statement.
>         I think that my statement can fairly be said to express your
>         statement:  " I want any box whatsoever."
>
> Jorge;
>      I do need to know whether or not you agree with the above. Have I
> expressed the idea of "I want any box whatsoever" to your satisfaction
> with my statement "roda  zo'u..etc." or not?

No. To my understanding, what you have expressed is "I need every box
there is".

You are saying that the relationship {nitcu} holds between {mi} and every
{da} which is a {tanxe}.

> I'm beginning to feel like we are caught in a Wharfian warp.

My feeling precisely.

> I'm off for vacation now.

Have a good time!

Jorge