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 m0qow6R-00001DC; Sun, 25 Sep 94 18:07 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5255; Sun, 25 Sep 94 19:05:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5251; Sun, 25 Sep 1994 19:05:34 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0696; Sun, 25 Sep 1994 17:04:21 +0100 Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:05:00 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Thoughts on "any" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2685 Lines: 50 Subject: Thoughts on "any" Chris Bogart : >There's something special about the arguments of djica, nitcu, claxu, >sisku, and certain commands (ko cpacu lo tanxe), that is akin to a >negative. There seems to be a negation associated with most of these >concepts (mi nitcu lo tanxe at least suggests that mi na ponse lo tanxe; >ko cpacu lo tanxe is the same way) The commonalty of all of these are that they are "intensional" - the thing wanted/needed/lacked/sought/acquired exists in the world of intension - i.e. the mind - which need not be the same as the real world. There are several other words that are, or could be intensional. The implicit negation you are seeing is the acknowledgement built into many of these words of the possible non-reality of the object. It is possible that any time that you have an intensional, or an irrealis condition, that there is an implicit need to introduce a more limited scope for any quantifiers within that intensional sumti. pc has said in private email (if I understand him) that many non-abstract values in such places are inherently sumti-raising because of the need for a different level of 'universe' with its own quantification scope. (I'll let him explain this if it isn't obvious, since I am anything but qualified to talk clearly on the subject. I brought in irrealis into the last paragraph, because it hasn't thus far been mentioned in this discussion. Irrealis mode seems to me to be what we are talking about whenever we aren't sure that something exists, asnd there may be some solution to the problems of quantification in 'mental world' sumti by using the marker for irrealis mode (Colin Fine has argued this as the general meaning of "da'i" in UI). I don't pretend that this answers all issues that have been raised in this discussion (which has gone over my head), but maybe it will help on some of them. Nora is reading the discussions and may eventually comment, but she isn't yet managing to keep up with the flow of messages, much less getting caught up to the point where she feels ready to contribute. I believe that pc is roughly in the same position, and perhaps John Cowan as well. The intensity of the discussion is good, and perhaps a new record for this mailing list especially in that it is involving people from over a half-dozen countries, and is at the deepest logical levels of the language. So in no way to I want to urge a halt to the discussion, while warning that pronouncements from "on-high" will not be coming in the short term, especially while the discussion continues at this level. My compliments to all of you for your continued contributions. lojbab