From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sun Jan 09 14:26:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15747 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2005 22:26:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Jan 2005 22:26:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 2005 22:26:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CnlWI-0002q3-F8 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:26:46 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CnlVm-0002pW-Gz; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:26:14 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CnlVR-0002p9-Ke for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:25:53 -0800 Received: (qmail 45540 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jan 2005 22:25:22 -0000 Message-ID: <20050109222522.45538.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.114.197.65] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:25:22 PST Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:25:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000001c4f63e$d3f0dec0$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-archive-position: 9208 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23600 --- And Rosta wrote: > IIUC, "mi nitcu lo mikce" will have a meaning that > generalizes over the two more particular readings "I need > a doctor" can have (viz "There's a doctor who I need" > vs. "I need a doctor, any doctor, (tho there may be > no such doctor)". "There is at least one doctor such that I need that doctor" would be {mi nitcu su'o lo mikce} or equivalently {su'o da poi mikce zo'u mi nitcu da}. {mi nitcu lo mikce} is not a "there is" claim any more than {la djan cu dansu} is a "there is" claim. It's not a claim about what there is but rather a claim that the referent of {mi} is in a certain relationship with the referent of {lo mikce}. >(And likewise for "mi nitcu re mikce".) "mi nitcu re mikce" says that among the things that are doctors there are exactly two, no more and no less, that I need. This may be true for example if I need Dr Jones and Dr Smith and no other doctor, or if I need a cardiologist and an oncologist and no other doctor. It depends on what counts as a doctor in the context. > Is there a straightforward way of expressing each of > the two readings distinctly? In the case of {re mikce}, we could say {mi nitcu re klesi be lo mikce} vs {mi nitcu re prenu poi mikce}, for example, to distinguish two kinds of doctor from two persons who are doctors. If what you need is a doctor pair for some reason (irrespective of specialities), then {mi nitcu lo re mikce} would be the way to say it. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250