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 m0qncXm-00005XC; Thu, 22 Sep 94 04:01 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0400; Thu, 22 Sep 94 04:00:23 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0397; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 04:00:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6403; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 02:59:08 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 21:01:31 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 669 Lines: 21 Mark Biggar says: > Yes, but the meaning of "I need two boxes" can depend heavly on context > as it can mean the same as "I need another box" in the case where you > already have 1 box, it is full and you still got stuff to pack. You're right. Complications keep cropping up... > So > How do you say "I need another box" with the same type of transparentness > as when you say "I need a box"? {mi nitcu re tanxe} is still good, because having it doesn't preclude needing it. You still need the one that is packed full. If you need the second "opaquely", you could say {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo remoi tanxe} = "I need to have a second box". Or something. Jorge