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 m0qzZso-00006qC; Tue, 25 Oct 94 02:36 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1269; Tue, 25 Oct 94 02:37:09 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1265; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 02:37:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3602; Tue, 25 Oct 1994 01:34:02 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 19:23:34 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: "any" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1703 Lines: 51 > > (1) ko cuxna lo karda > > > > Sentence (1) does NOT mean "there exists at least one card such that > > I am requesting that you pick it" > > This doesn't look like "no problem" to me. What if I want to say > "There is a card; pick it", or "Pick a card (& there is a card)"? > > ---- > And You can do the same thing you are doing in English, paraphrase: ko'a karda i ko cuxna ko'a It is a card; pick it. or ko cuxna lo karda (to ije lo karda cu zasti toi) Pick a card (& a card exists). I say in this case there is no problem because the simple expression {ko cuxna lo karda} already has the opaque meaning, due to the way that {ko} is defined, and furthemore the opaque meaning is the one we usually want for this type of sentence. If you mean something else, you have to be more wordy. I just realized that it is strange that we have a special word for the "command mode", but not for other similar things like the "intentional mode", or the "volitional mode", etc, which are handled with UIs, but could equally well have been something like {ko}. For example, say {xi'u} was the "intentional {mi}", then we'd have xi'u klama lo zarci ~ ai mi klama lo zarci just like ko klama lo zarci ~ e'o do klama lo zarci I don't see why the imperative is somehow more fundamental than the intentional, volitional, and all the others. It would be interesting to make a list of the attitudinals that change the sentence to opaque mode, like {ai} and {e'o}. This is assuming I'm right that {ai mi klama lo zarci} means "I intend that there be a store such that I go to it" and not "there is a store such that I intend to go to it". Jorge