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 m0qmgiq-00005XC; Mon, 19 Sep 94 14:17 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7592; Mon, 19 Sep 94 12:06:47 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7591; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 12:06:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4352; Mon, 19 Sep 1994 11:05:32 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 02:04:08 -0700 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: any answer X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 24 >From my previous post: 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." Jorge; I do need to know whether or not you agree with the above. Have I expressed the idea of "I want any box whatsoever" to your satisfaction with my statement "roda zo'u..etc." or not? I'm beginning to feel like we are caught in a Wharfian warp. I'm off for vacation now. djer jlk@netcom.com