Message-Id: <m0r1MbM-00006yC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 29 Oct 1994 15:49:12 -0700
Reply-To:     "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      any
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1845
Lines: 28

Aside from the problem with _lo_, _ko_cuxna_lo_karda_ finally convinced
me that we do need something more to d in Lojban what we do in English
with "any".  The problem is that imperatives set up opaque contexts
without a word that sets the context.  Thus, we cannot show the
quantifier outside the intensional context by putting it before the
context-forming word -- the classic way of dealing with a context leaper
in logic.  Even fronting  the quantifier leaves it in imperative mode: ko
cuxna ro karda = ro da poi karda gu ko cuxna da and both say "Pick every
card" (I suspect I need something stronger than just "gu" there) which is
as wrong as the forcer-deck _lo_ for what we want.  We can stick with the
safe ko cuxna pa karda or su'o karda or da poi karda, but those, being in
an opaque context, need not be restricted to (or even include) the cards
actually presented.
Using the subject-raising cmavo won't help here, since we want exactly to
get out of the opaque context, not warn that we are still in it
(although, we might make it a toggle -- what is the happyface for "Yuck,
ptui"?)
I was glad to see that it seems to be accepted that opaque contexts arise
from event descriptions.  It is not clear whether it is accepted
that that is the only source, as I was trying to make the case.  But, in
any case, if this is to be an adequate explanation, we do need to do
something about "I saw someone playing pool", for, if that is an event
description it ruins the explanation, since it is transparent and thus it
is some factor or than event-descriptions which cause opacity. ("Obtains"
is also a problem but so strange that it can probably be handled by the
fact that "that p obtains" is in every way equipollent to just p, not
merely that the complex implies the simple.)
pc>|83 Trying to be the logical brake on the wheel of change