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 m0qlLD6-00005LC; Thu, 15 Sep 94 21:07 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0628; Thu, 15 Sep 94 21:05:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0625; Thu, 15 Sep 1994 21:05:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9604; Thu, 15 Sep 1994 20:04:23 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 14:01:16 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2102 Lines: 68 la lojbab cusku di'e > I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want > 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have > missed the point of this discussion. {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box". la i,n cusku di'e > Jorge's {xe'e} = "any": > > This strikes me as pretty dubious semantically (even more > problematical than {po'o} = only). "Any" is kind of ambiguous > between "all" and "one". We can make it as unambiguous as we care to. "Any one of all" is not the same as "each" and is not the same as "one". (I would prefer that {xe'e} not be restricted to one, but this would probably be the default. Then {paxe'e}, {rexe'e}, etc. for "any one", "any two" etc.) > xe'eti ka'e se pilno > Any of these will do. > > might as well be > > roti ka'e se pilno > All of these are usable. > Each of these is capable of being used. Yes, because the English expression in this case is somewhat ambiguous, but the meanings are different. In the first case I say that only one can be used, but it can be any of these. The "innateness" of {ka'e} complicates the issue, though. How about mi ba dunda xe'eti do I will give you any (one) of these. It is different from mi ba dunda roti do I will give you each of these. and different from mi ba dunda pati do I will give you one of these. (Guess which one.) > (I've previously on occasion advocated translating {ro} as > "each" rather than "all". It means the same in the simple cases, > and helps demonstrate problems similar to the one we're discussing > here in the more complicated ones.) I agree. "Each" is much better, because "all" can suggest a massification that is not there. BTW, what is so problematic about {po'o}? I've seen this complaint a few times, but never read any description of what the problem might be. And now that you mention it, it may well be that an attitudinal of the {po'o} type could be used instead of a PA, as I proposed. Jorge