Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qxQUQ-00006eC; Wed, 19 Oct 94 04:10 EET
Message-Id: <m0qxQUQ-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0265; Wed, 19 Oct 94 04:11:07 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0262; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 04:11:07 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5644; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:08:05 +0100
Date:         Tue, 18 Oct 1994 20:14:23 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "any"
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1928
Lines: 61

la djer cusku di'e

> su'o da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja mi cidja da
> I eat some apples. (They exist).

This is not what the Lojban sentence claims. In Lojban, you wrote:
"there is some x, such that if it is an apple, I eat it". This statement
is always true. It suffices to select some non-apple for da, and since
in that case {da plise} is false, the whole statement is true for at least
that da whether I eat it or not, and therefore the statement is true.

I eat some apples is

   mi citka lo plise
   I eat some apples

or equivalently:

   su'o da poi plise zo'u mi citka da
   For at least one x which is an apple, I eat it.

[Note: citka=eat, cidja=food]

> lo pa da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja mi cidja da
> I eat the apple. (only one specific apple, it could be named Munchkin.)

Again the same problem. You are claiming that for the one thing, if it is
an apple then you eat it. You don't claim that it is an apple, so the
claim is again trivially true.

The normal way to say "I eat the apple" is {mi citka le pa plise}.
You can say {mi citka lo pa plise}, but then you really mean that only
one apple exists.

> l'alfa da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja mi cidja da
> I eat any apple. (only one random apple, it could be named Crunchkin)
>
> l'sma da zo'u tu'e da plise inaja me cidja da
> I eat any apples. (subject to the built-in restrictions on "any")
>
> These are of course too stilted for practical use.

And they have a different meaning than the one you want.

> But maybe the
> following forms would work:
>
> mi cidja ro lo plise
> mi cidja su'o lo plise
> mi cidja lo pa plise
> mi cidja l'alfa lo plise
> mi cidja l'sma lo plise
>
> These are all meant to have the same meaning as the corresponding
> examples above.

I think by "l'alfa" and "l'sma" you mean the same I wanted to get with
{pa xe'e} and {su'o xe'e}. I don't understand why you say that one should
be a quantifier and the other an article.

Jorge