Message-Id: <199409132152.AA12193@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:34:21 -0600
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Subject:      Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

>> What is the meaning of: {mi nitcu lo tanxe}?
>
>> Is it "I need something which is a box", or is it "there exists at least
>> one box such that I need it"?
>
>I believe it has to be the latter.
>
>Or maybe there's something else going on.  Natlangs seem to avoid the
>issue, or use constructions like any-<x>-whatever to emphasise the point.
>But I don't see how you carry that over into a logical language.

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!

Maybe "I need a box" logically really means "I need to have the properties
of a box at my disposal" or something like that.  That's quantifiable:
"There exist some properties X such that I need X at my disposal (in order
to pack up my socks or whatever)"  Whether or not the box exists, the
platonic properties of boxes always exist in Plato-Space :-), so they always
exist.

So "mi nitce loka tanxe" would appear to work.  Unfortunately I tend to read
that as "I want to be brown, square, and able to contain objects", i.e. I
want the properties of the box to pertain to my person.  But in fact the
sentence doesn't actually say that, and maybe interpreting "ka" in this
broader way would solve the "any" problem.

Essentially we would be circumventing the ambiguity of wanting "any box" by
specifying precisely what specific (abstract) thing we DO want, which is the
property/ability of boxing things up.

Reading this over, I'm unsure whether I really want to claim "ka" is just
the right word; suppose there were a new abstractor with the same grammar
that filled this function -- I have no idea how you'd define it in English,
though.

But we shouldn't *require* nitce to take an abstraction because it's still
useful to be able to say "mi nitce lo tanxe" if it is in fact a specific box
you are referring to, rather than just a box in general.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~