Message-Id: <m0qmD7S-00005LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:38:27 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 5326
Lines: 116

JL>> Now "mi nitcu pa tanxe", which is NOT restricted, does say that ANY member
JL>> of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' will satisfy your
JL>> need.
JL>
JL>Using that same logic, you would conclude that "mi ponse pa tanxe" says
JL>that ANY member of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' is
JL>owned by you.

No.  It says that exactly ONE out of the unrestricted set are owned by
 me,
but gives no clue as to which of that set it is (it could be 'any' of them).


JL>Let's say I have three boxes, one red, one blue, and one purple with
JL>little pink flowers, and _any_ of them will serve for whatever purpose
JL>they are needed.
JL>
JL>Now you say {mi nitcu pa tanxe}
JL>
JL>And I ask {xu do nitcu le xunre tanxe}
JL>
JL>What should the answer be?

not "go'i".

Most likely something like "ri banzu"

JL>If {do nitcu le xunre tanxe} is false, and {do nitcu le blanu tanxe} is
JL>also false, then we could go over the list for every existing box and
JL>it would be false for all of them, then {do nitcu pa tanxe} would be
JL>false, because we couldn't find any {pa tanxe} that made it true.

It is not the case that there is a sentence isomorphic to "mi nitcu pa tanxe"
that will answer the question, changing only the quantifier.

We do not in English answer "I need a box" with "Do you need the red box?"
and so forth for every box known to exist.  If we did then the answer might
very well be "no" to each such question, because it is not necessarily the
case that the specific box being referred to is'the' box that is needed.

Iwould be unlike to respond to "I need a box" in English OR Lojban with a
question involving predicate "need"/"nitcu".  If you insist, then the
question "xu do nitcu pa lu'a le xunre tanxe ce le blanu tanxe ce le zirpu
tanxe".  The answer to this might STILL be "no", though, if it is not the case
 that pragmatically, the first person decides that indeed 1 of those 3 is THE
one s/he wanted originally, but did not restrict in his original statement.

A question involving "banzu" is far more appropraite in response.  This is
because the origoinal speaker was being non-specific, and you are in effect
trying to make him a liar by forcing him to decide that there was indeed
a specific one that was needed.

Now, in reality, the first speaker should never say "mi nitcu pa tanxe",
because it is very unlikely that just 'any' box will do.  Indeed, I wouyld
go so far as to say that one should not make truth-critical statements
using "lo" any more than with "da", because very rarely in real life do we
specify all relevant restrictions.

Nick and John came upo with the answer to this by coining "voi" - where
"pada voi tanxe" parallels "le" in semantics.  But this is another bound
variable and (may) claim existence.  On the other jhand, it is then possible
to say "mi nitcu lenu pada voi tanxe cu co'e" (the quantificatiojn of the
"da" cannot be exported outside of the lenu clause).  I guess youi can
even use pada poi tanxe, come to think of it.  Perhaps another solution to
the original problem (which I am already not certain I remember).

JL>Now, other quantifications for masses confuse me. What do they really mean?

Not much, if you are getting into truth functional statements.
loi cifno lives in Africa, but also on every other continent.

There is no quantifier that could go on that "loi" other than "pisu'o" or one
of the other non-specific fracxtional quantifiers that would be meaningful.

"pimu" only works if EXACTLY half, not 1 more or less than half, of lions
live in Africa.  In real life we seldom know quantifiers that exactly when
dealing with masses.  (Again, I ask you to think of mass nouns in English,
and Spanish assuming they exist in Spanish.  If you use quantifiers with
mass nouns, it is at the very least probably a highly marked usage that
will practically beg people to look for some deeper hidden structure to
your statement (an elided sumti raising or restriction, most likely).

JL>        piro loi remna ka'e se jbena
JL>        All of the mass of humans is innately capable of giving birth
JL>
JL>The last one is true, because the mass inherits all properties of its
JL>members, but then what does the other one say? And if it's true for
JL>the whole mass, should it be true for 75% of the mass?

No it is not true.  The mass inherits all properties of its members, but the
mass as a whole does not EXHIBIT those properties.

You can truthfully say
"Water is frozen"  (water exists in a frozen state) or
"Water isn't always frozen" (water exists in a non-frozen state)

(Yeah, I'll admit the former is rather strange - how about "Roses are red"
even though some are other colors.)

You cannot say "All water is frozen" or "All roses are red".

JL>And asks:
JL>
JL>> If "waiting for a taxi" is "waiting for loi taxi", how do we say
JL>> "we're waiting for two taxis". Does "reloi" do this?
JL>
JL>No, and that's an excellent question. (I think reloi gives you two masses
JL>of taxis.)

Consensus has been that any quantifier greater than "pa"/"piro" on "loi"
is nonsensical.  I have propsoed some meanings in the past, but John C. has
not agreed with me, if I recall.  If he has, he almost certainly has added it
to the appropriate paper (someone oughta check and see what his papers say
about this issue, BTW.)

lojbab