Message-Id: <m0qzUUx-00006qC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 22 Oct 1994 19:16:02 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: "any"
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2181
Lines: 58

la pycy cusku di'e

> I,n asks where is the quantification in "Pick a card, any card."
[...]
>  The "any"
> set is, however, exactly the set for "Pick a card", "if there is a card
> in the deck that I pick, then I satisfy the request".
[...]
>         That same satisfaction set plays a related role in the original
> question , about "need" and "any" functions again to leap out of that
> context to home ground.

I agree, but the question is how to implement it in Lojban.

In the case of commands/directives/requests there is no problem, the
way things are defined,

(1)     ko cuxna lo karda

means: "Make true the statement {do cuxna lo karda}". And the statement
will be made true for any card that is picked.

Sentence (1) does NOT mean "there exists at least one card such that
I am requesting that you pick it", and therefore we don't run into the
problem we have with "need".

(2)     mi nitcu lo tanxe

on the other hand, DOES mean "there exists at least one box such that
I need it". This is how we want it to work for most predicates, but for
{nitcu} it gives us problems.

I am happy to solve this using {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe}, which roughly would
mean "the archetypal box is such that I need it", or "the relationship
{nitcu} holds between {mi} and the archetypal box". This is why I don't
like {lo'e} being defined as "typical", which in any case is a strange
article to have.

> It does it as well in "I will eat any apple you
> choose", if you remember that "will" here is intentional, offering to do
> something, not "just" a tense marker,

Yes, so {ba} is the wrong word to translate "I am willing to".
I would say

(3)     ai mi citka pa plise noi do ba cuxna ke'a
        I will to eat one apple, which will be chosen by you.

Here the problem is solved by {ai}, which supposedly wrecks havoc with
truth values. We can interpret it as "I am willing that (I eat an apple,
which you will choose)". Then the same effect is achieved of having
it inside an abstraction.

I think from the point of view of logic, "any" can be handled one way
or another, but we can't translate the emphatic "any": "anyone whatsoever",
because there isn't a word to emphasize.

Jorge