From sentto-44114-18861-1046903927-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Mar 05 14:39:24 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.82]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18qhXj-0004jG-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:39:19 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18861-1046903927-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Mar 2003 22:38:48 -0000 X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 5 Mar 2003 22:38:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 96712 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 22:38:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Mar 2003 22:38:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 22:38:43 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01353 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:35:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200303052235.RAA01353@mail.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:38:41 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: from "Craig" at Mar 05, 2003 05:21:40 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:38:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4372 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Craig scripsit: > But, doctors do exist, and if they didn't there wouldn't be one I don't > need. And claims that the existence of a specific doctor that I don't need > falsifies my reading of "mi nitcu lo mikce", but I claim the existence of a > specific doctor that I do need would falsify it, and e is just > misinterpreting. The existence of one or more doctors that fail the need test ("need not" is not a negation of "need" in English, leading to still more confusion) *does* falsify "mi nitcu lo mikce", which is good evidence that it does not translate "I need a doctor, any doctor", but rather means "There is/are doctor(s) that I need." -- XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan Entity parser dot-com jcowan@reutershealth.com Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/