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 m0qmrb2-00005XC; Tue, 20 Sep 94 01:54 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7808; Tue, 20 Sep 94 01:52:37 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7806; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 01:52:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5723; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 00:51:24 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 13:56:28 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: TECH: "any" & quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1871 Lines: 38 I've been following the "any" discussion avidly, but everytime I try to participate I notice myself flip-flopping on the issue. It's very confusing, and the only thing I've convinced myself of is that there's something lojbab is saying that Jorge is missing and vice-versa. Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear. That makes the "box" example easy to analyze: "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need". Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences. xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??) xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ??? Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti marked with "xe'e" or "xa'a"? If so, let's do more translations with these two markings and see which one comes out more like the way we think lojban is currently defined. Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"? By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence? (if "xa'a" isn't an unassigned cmavo and actually means something already, the my apologies and could someone clued in on the "experimental list" pick a better one?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~