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 m0qmRdM-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 22:10 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qmRdM-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2553; Sun, 18 Sep 94 22:09:19 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2551; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 22:09:18 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5962; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 21:08:07 +0200
Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:10:19 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)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 623
Lines: 14

(I would respond to all of lojbab's points, but I would be repeating
myself yet again, so I only reply to a few :)

> Now, in reality, the first speaker should never say "mi nitcu pa tanxe",
> because it is very unlikely that just 'any' box will do. Indeed, I wouyld
> go so far as to say that one should not make truth-critical statements
> using "lo" any more than with "da", because very rarely in real life do we
> specify all relevant restrictions.

So I should never say {lo remna cu mamta mi} because it is very unlikely,
(indeed outright false) that just 'any' remna will do. Is that really what
{lo} means?

Jorge