From ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sat Mar 6 22:45:17 2010 Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 00:24:06 +0100 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: veridicality of lo - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: > If I say "mi nitcu lo tanxe" I am implying that any box will suffice, > from a ring-box to a refrigerator-box. No. It means "There is a box that I need". > If I say "mi nitcu le tanxe" I > am implying a specific in-mind box (which may not truthfully fit the > predicate ke'a tanxe). If I say "mi nitcu da voi tanxe" I am getting > something half-way in between - I don't think it is necessarily a > specific box, but the restriction is certainly specific and in-mind and > not necessarily veridical. I'd have thought {da voi tanxe} and {le tanxe} should be synonymous. I don't see any grounds for their being different. > (Does this solve that bloody "any" problem?) No, but I am of the view that it's solved: everything of an any-related nature is sayable, especially if pc's 2 new cmavo (or at least the one marking a sumti as not quantified in the localmost bridi) are adopted. "I need a box, any box" is, say, {mi dumnitcu loe duu vi tanxe} --- And