Message-Id: <m0qmDHb-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:49:12 -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: any and all
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1213
Lines: 20

I think part of the trouble we are having is that in English we DON'T say
"I need any box."  I cannot fathom what someone wouyld mean by this without
context.  "I need a box" sometimes, but but not always, could mean "pa tanxe".
I doubt that it would be said if there did not exist a box that would
satisfy (so using da poi or da voi with any particular scope would not
inherently cause probalems).  And in MOST cases, the spoeaker has some
unstated restrictions in mind, in which case "pa le tanxe" is also accurate.
And le (probably) does not claim existence, only in-mindedness.

The real probalem is that, as we have generally found in Lojban, very few people
ever really make statements that go over into quantificational logic very
well, because the quantificational versions (claiming existence and exactness
of numbers and restriction, etc) rarely  accurately state the contextual
intent.  This is why almost no Lojbanist makes statements about "roda", or
"ro" ANYTHING - we KNOW that universal quantification doesn't often work.
And statements that most people make as generalizations are really mass
statements or stereotypes, and these are clearly distingiuished from the
"ro" type statements.

lojbab