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 m0r94Xn-00005XC; Sun, 20 Nov 94 07:10 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6791; Sun, 20 Nov 94 07:10:44 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6787; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 07:10:44 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2182; Sun, 20 Nov 1994 06:07:31 +0100 Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 21:09:06 -0800 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: Re: Cowan's Summary #3: any old x .. To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1932 Lines: 62 djan said: > >I believe that the difference between: > >1) I want a sandwich > >and > >2) I want any (old) sandwich (at all) > >is captured in Lojban by the attitudinal pair "sa'e"/"sa'enai" for >"strictly speaking" vs. "loosely speaking". Thus Example 1 is >translated: > >3) mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'enai > >where the predicate "snuji" is marked as not to be strictly interpreted, i.e >possibly having context-dependent restrictions (a moldy sandwich that >has been chewed on by a warthog, as And says, won't do), whereas: > >4) mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'e > >translates Example 2: anything that may truthfully fit into the x1 place >of "snuji" is in order here. ----------------------------------- John and others seem to agree that all the meaning in the English "any" can be captured by a universal quantifier or an attitude marker. I disagree. Consider this meaning from my Webster's: "1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: 1a: one or another taken at random ." There are two anys here. One taken indiscriminately or some taken indiscriminately. I want to consider the case of one taken indiscriminately. It certainly cannot be expressed as "all". Neither is it an just an attitude. We're talking about quantification here, namely one something. To be taken indiscriminately implies a choice from a larger set, at least two. pa lo su'o re da one of the at least two real x's. would express one selected from a set of at least two. But that's a mouthful. Why not xe'e? I want (any) sandwich would be mi djica pa lo su'o re snuji or mi djica xe'e lo snuji, vs. djan's (with others), mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'e With the last the waitress would be justified in bringing a sandwich tray, with the first she would be constrained to bring one indiscriminately chosen sandwich. I say this because of the vagueness of tu'a. Why not call a spade a spade? djer