[lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Jordan:
> Someone like And or Nick or Xorxes is more likely to be able
> to give a better definition of Any than I, 

Without meaning to endorse that, let me make a couple of points.

1. We have been using "Any" as a gloss for a particular interpretation;
one shouldn't get too hung up on details of the English word 'Any'.

2. That said, English 'any' usually means '_da_ such that _da_ is 
within the scope of some particular element of meaning', i.e. a
narrow-scope existential quantifier.

3. Changing examples from "need a doctor" to "need a dictionary of
Lojban" might help to bring out the contrast between the readings.
It is not true that "there is a(n actual) dictionary of Lojban that I 
need to have", but it is true that "I need there to be a(n actual) 
dictionary of Lojban that I have".

4. A predicate logic analysis of the two readings would normally
differentiate them using propositionalism (as captured by my
gloss of "need there to be a dictionary" instead of just "need
a dictionary"), but there are some cases where propositionalism
will not easily work, e.g. "Nick described a dictionary of Lojban".

5. Prior to its current lull, the Jboske discussion had established
the range of meanings that the gadri system ought to be able to
express, and the discussion was well into a stage of considering
how, if at all, the current gadri system could be palatably
revised or further specified so that it could express this range
of meanings. Nick is fairly optimistic that he can come up with
a scheme that expresses this range of meanings and that he can sell
to Lojban conservatives.

--And.