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 m0qmPN2-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 19:45 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1789; Sun, 18 Sep 94 19:44:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1787; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 19:44:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3759; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 18:43:06 +0200 Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 09:43:57 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3285 Lines: 76 la djer cusku di'e > There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever." > __________________________________________________________________________ > I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is > another question. > > 1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da tu'u > For all X: X is a box implies I need X. > If X is a box, I need it. > > 2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da > For all X which is a box, I need X Those say "I need every box". But I need only one, so they can't be equivalent to "I need any box". GK> I beg to differ. "I need every box" would be: mi nitcu ro lo tanxe. This is quite different from the structures above. I think you're going off course on the " roda" quantifier. Here are some quotes from THE LANGUAGE OF FIRST ORDER LOGIC by Barwise & Etchemendy: "Universal quantifier (upside down A). This symbol is used to express universal claims, those we express in English using such terms as 'everything, each thing, all things, and anything'. It is always used in connection with one of the variables u,v,w,x,.., and so is said to be a variable binding operator. The combination Ax is read, "for every object x," or (somewhat misleadingly) "for all x". {Footnote}:We encourage students to use the first locution when reading formulas, at least for a few weeks, since we have seen many students who have misunderstood the basic function of variables as a result of reading them the second way." {End footnote} 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." > I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to > a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to > lojban might be a problem there. I agree we shouldn't just have a word that means "any". What we need is something to translate some of the things that can be said in English using the word "any", and that seemingly can't be said in Lojban. (There might be a way to say it using the existing words. If so, I'd like to know what it is.) Jorge GK> I am not categorically against "any" in the language. I would need to see some indispensible uses of "any". Remember, I am new at this too, and conclusions we reach could be at serious odds with the logic community. Queremos una lengua pura, no una lengua cualquiera. We want a pure language, not any language whatsoever. Now how do you say that in lojban? djer jlk@netcom.com