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 m0qm950-00005LC; Sun, 18 Sep 94 02:22 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7995; Sun, 18 Sep 94 02:20:36 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7992; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 02:20:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0521; Sun, 18 Sep 1994 01:19:23 +0200 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:08:13 -0700 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: any and all X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1009 Lines: 15 I came in late on this thread, but the examples I have seen, with nitcu, do not look particularly "any" ish. In modal (intentional) and negative contexts (both of which nitcu -- or at least "need" -- is) "any' behaves like tight-scope "a"; "I need any box" amounts to just "I need a box", provided that it is clear that it is not a particular box but any old one will do. I suspect there is some infection in the example from the notion of "all the boxes I can get" which might be expressed by "any boxes you have" or so. I suspect that that is about some enough-ad of boxes (drat, I wish I was remembering lexes again) or just "enough x such that x is a box". "Any" is a pain: a context-leaper in some cases to become a wide-scope universal (and that would be nice to have in Lojban, if we do not have it already -- or is it the tight-scope one we need?) and in other cases, as here, a tight-scope particular. Cf Vendler's article in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (isthat where all this started?) pc >|83