Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 00:34:45 -0400
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199409220434.AA09750@access4.digex.net>
To: lojbab@access.digex.net
Subject: Re: any? (response to Desmond)
Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

John Cowan answering Desmond:
JB>> That also makes sense to me.  I would be interested in the simplest lojban
JB>> rendering of
JB>> (1)  A man is eating an icecream.  The man is happy.
JB>> (2)  Two people are in a room.  The man is happy.     
JB>> (3)  A man may eat an icecream.  A man may be happy.
JB>> (4)  A man may eat an icecream.  That would make him happy.
JB>
JB>Without worrying about Lojban vocabulary, it comes out:
JB>
JB>1) le -man -eats loi -icecream .i le -man -happy.
JB>2) re lo -persons -in le -room .i le -man -happy.
JB>3) lo -man (modal) -eat loi -icecream .i lo -man (modal) -happy.
JB>4) lo -man (modal) -eat loi -icecream gi'e -happy.

(2) is the problem sentence.  We have defined and found useful this type
of wording, and indeed "PA + brivla" expands to "PA lo brivla".

But by John and Colin's argument on another branch of theis thread, it is
quite likely that this should be 

2) le re -persons -in le -room .i le -man -happy.

because most interpetations of the English (2) would presume that the man
is being selected out of the two people in the room, and if you know enough
to know that at leats one of the two is a (specific) man, then you have too
much in mind to use "lo".

lojbab