Message-Id: <m0r9KLc-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 20 Nov 1994 17:04:05 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cowan's sum#3 any..
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2360
Lines: 70

la djer cusku di'e

> 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 <ask ~man you meet>."
>
> There are two anys here. One taken indiscriminately or some taken
> indiscriminately.

Yes. We don't have to worry too much about the "one" vs "some" distinction,
because in Lojban this need not be marked, but we can mark it when
required. But I agree that this (in both forms, one or some) is the
meaning closest to {xe'e}.

> 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.

I don't agree with this. This is still transparent, not opaque.
You can't express the meaning of {xe'e} in terms of the already
existing quantifiers, because they are always transparent.

> 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,

Yes. Of course, she would probably understand what you mean, but the
point is that there is no way you could be more explicit (without
telling her what you want the sandwich for), unless we have some
opaque marker.

> with the first she would be constrained to bring one
> indiscriminately chosen sandwich.

No, with the first, she wouldn't know which one is the sandwich you want.
You've only told her that there is one of the at least two sandwiches
such that you want it. There is one and only one sandwich that has that
property, but the waitress normally wouldn't know which one it is.

The second one is the one that tells her that you want at least one
arbitrarily selected sandwich. In this case, you are not claiming that
there is one sandwich with the property of being wanted by you.

> I say this because of the vagueness
> of tu'a. Why not call a spade a spade?

Right.

>
> djer  jlk@netcom.com
>

Jorge