Message-Id: <199409140155.AA29745@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 13 Sep 1994 21:49:48 -0400
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  <199409132149.RAA11496@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Chris
              Bogart on Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:34:21 -0600)
Status: RO

>Date:         Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:34:21 -0600
>From: Chris Bogart <cbogart%CSN.ORG@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

>How to say "I need a box [any-box-whatever]" has been bugging me all day.

>If "lo tanxe" is the sumti, it is inherently quantified as "there exists
>some thing-which-is-a-box", which isn't what we want, since it's more of a
>hypothetical box.  The kind of box I need may not even exist!

I recall we went through this discussion once before; in fact it was
spurred on by a similar discussion regarding TLI Loglan regarding taxis
(mentioned by Randall Holmes here, I see).  The answer there (our analogous
version of JCB's I think, and I liked it) was "loi tanxe".  This works.  I
need [some part of] the mass of things that are boxes.  Possibly "lei
tanxe" if you want to admit something that isn't a box but turns out to be
what I meant anyway.  I don't think we need a new quantifier for this one;
massification works (unless massification was rethought and redefined since
the last time this question came through and I missed it).  I'll try to
find quotes from the last time.

~mark