Message-Id: <m0qn7Yx-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 20 Sep 1994 11:47:24 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: 2457
Lines: 67

> >{mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} means something like:
> >
> >        da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da
> >
> >while "I need a unicorn" normally means:
> >
> >        mi nitcu le nu da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi ponse da
> >
> >Do you agree that those two sentences say something different from the other?
>
> Yes.

Alleluyah!

> But I think that "mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna" is more likely to mean
> the second expansion than the first.

By "more likely" which do you mean:

(1) In most contexts where that Lojban sentence appears, it means something
    like the second expansion, but in some contexts it may mean something
    like the first.

(2) It always means the same one of them, but you are not sure which, and
    you suspect it is the second, that's why you say "more likely".


If (1) then you are throwing logic out the window, and saying that just
like in English "I need a box" can have two meanings (Quine's transparent/
opaque), the same happens in Lojban, and which meaning it is is determined
by context.

If (2) then the way we've been interpreting most other predicates is wrong.
(Unless you say that {nitcu} should be interpreted in a different way than
other predicates.)

> The first claims that unicorns
> exist, which "lo" does not.

But we're in that fantasy world where they do exist. Change it to boxes,
the problem remains.

> I'm not sure about truth-fucntional value
> of the second expansion - what the value is of "le nu [false statement]"
> is not clear.

Because there is no truth value for it. It is a sumti, and sumti don't have
truth values. I would even question that in "le nu [statement]", there is
any truth value for that [statement], since it is not being claimed.


> However your clarification may point to the fact that se nitcu should be an
> abstraction regardless about how we resolve the "lo"/"any" question.

This is what was done to {djica}, which is analogous to {nitcu}. But I don't
see why the transparent meaning should be forbidden. {mi nitcu le vi tanxe}
= "I need this box", makes perfect sense. And so does {mi djica le vi tanxe}.

> If so,
> then PLEASE separate the place structure issue and let's get it resolved -
> you have only a few days before I finsih the e-order gismu list.  (I presume
> that the issue affects "nitcu" and "djica".  Any others?

{cpedu} comes to mind, but there probably are others. I disagree that they
should be made to accept abstractions only.

Jorge