From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Mar 03 13:50:14 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 21:50:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 5118 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 21:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 21:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 21:50:12 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AE1210AF029E; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:50:10 -0500 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:50:33 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 18768 > >The way Xod and Craig want to use {lo} is not how it has >been defined, but there certainly is a need for that other >meaning. I use {lo'e} for that other meaning, but I would >favour changing {lo} for that function, because it is >very frequent and basic. That would change the meaning >of {la meris pendo lo mikce} to "Mary is friendly to doctors", >a generic statement, rather than the concrete meaning "Mary >is friend to at least one doctor" that it has now. I can't speak for xod, but I can tell you what I think. I think that the truth value of {la meris pendo lo mikce} cannot assert that there is any specific mikce she pendos. If {la meris nitcu lo mikce}, I would assert that she does not need all doctors, but she needs one of them. But, the need is not for a specific doctor. Therefore, I say that {la meris nitcu lo mikce} means that: 1. Meris does not necessarily need all doctors. One will do. Thus, {la meris pendo lo mikce} does not assert that she befriends all doctors. 2. Meris needs a doctor. Thus, {la meris pendo lo mikce} is true if and only if she is a friend of a doctor. 3. Meris does not need any specific doctor. Thus, the sayer of {la meris pendo lo mikce} does not mean to say anything about Meris' relationships with any doctor in particular. It may (in the pendo example, it must) be the case that there is a specific doctor Meris needs. But if so, that is not indicated by the sentence. This is the previously-mentioned 'ridiculous filter': If it is clear to a listener that Doctor Foo will not satisfy Meris' need, then {la meris nitcu lo mikce} might still be true. But if Meris needs Doctor Bar, and SPECIFICALLY Doctor Bar (and no other doctor would do), one should not say {la meris nitcu lo mikce}. That is to say, if: i la meris nitcu lo mikce i la meris na nitcu la mikc.fus. noi mikce are both asserted, there is no contradiction. Presumably if the second was the case, the first would only be uttered in isolation if the second was obvious. But if you tell me that i la meris nitcu lo mikce i la meris nitcu la mikc.bar. noi mikce i la meris na'e nitcu ro drata mikce then I will see a conflict. By my understanding of negation in Lojban, you could assert instead that {la meris na nitcu ro drata mikce} to tell me that her need can be met even if whe does not recieve care from every doctor other than Doctor Bra. But I think the sentence as given would assert that for each other doctor, her need will not be met if that doctor is the one to take care of her. I mention this so that if the preceeding is worng you understand that it stems from my misunderstanding of negation rather than a misunderstanding of lo, which is simply a gadri indicating that the thing is unspecific (beyond what is specified explicitly and what is clear from context) and that it is truly what you say it is (ie, le nanmu can ninmu but lo nanmu can't).