Message-Id: <m0qoxny-00001DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 25 Sep 1994 13:56:54 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: any
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2207
Lines: 59

Some comments on Veijo's very good summary.
(I don't agree with everything, but at least I think we
are starting to agree on what is the question.)

>     (1)   mi ponse pa tanxe
>     (2)   mi nitcu pa tanxe

> There is a relationship which is correctly expressed by
> both (1) and (2), even if (1) is apparently transparent
> and (2) apparently opaque. Do you see it? It is the
> relationship between {mi} and {pa}, the number of boxes,
> I either have one or need one.

I think I can see it, but then are we giving up the notion
that bridi describe relationships between the referents
of sumti?

> When we have an external quantifier we are not so much
> concerned about the identity/specificity as the number of
> entities. Perhaps we could sidestep the whole issue by
> defining that an external quantifier is a type of
> combined quantity abstraction descriptor. With this
> definition
>
>     (3) mi kalte lo xanto
>
> would be an opaque claim in the Quinean sense (given the
> implicit external quantifier {su'o}). The transparent
> case (which involves a specific elephant(s)) would be
>
>     (4) mi kalte le xanto
>
> The implicit external quantifier {ro} makes the transparency.

I think we agree that if the quantifier is {ro}, the claim is
transparent. (Be it {ro le} or {ro lo}.)

I'm not sure if you are proposing that in the case of
quantifiers other than {ro} the claim should be always opaque,
or either opaque or transparent, i.e. an ambiguous claim.

For example, suppose that I'm hunting a specific elephant
which we both agree to call {le xanto}. Then (4) is true.
Is (3) true in that case?

If (3) is false because {lo} is always opaque, then claims
with {lo} become mostly useless. It is only for a few predicates
that opaque claims are the most common ones.

If (3) is true, then (3) by itself doesn't tell us much,
because we don't know if you are claiming that there is such
an elephant being hunted, or that I am elephant-hunting,
no matter what all existing elephants are doing.

This gives me an idea. Why not {mi xanto kalte} for the opaque
claim? Similarly {mi tanxe nitcu}. Of course, if someone comes
asking me {do xanto kalte ma}, I wouldn't know what to respond.

Jorge