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

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:21:58PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > And as I said to Craig, no, I don't.  I agree that there exists some
> > thing that you need.  The scope of your need is still undefined.
> 
> 
> What can I say? It's wrong. Using da to mean something that you have
> in mind would make da specific. And it would make lo specific. But lo
> is not specific. I think even Jordan would agree with this; he once
> tried to convince me that even when da was limited to refer to a
> single item, it STILL isn't specific!
> 
> 
> > You never answered my question, by the way.  Do you believe that "da
> > poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim." means that any human, including
> > the blind ones, can see Jim?
> 
> 
> If I endorse Craig's post, and Craig shows that the poi clause limits
> the valid range of da, then therefore I agree with you here. So yes:
> explicitly-given context circumscribes the range of da. I didn't
> answer it because that's not what's being disputed here.

You've just contradicted yourself.  Either context constrains da or it
doesn't.  If I need a doctor because I have cataracts, an
otolaryngologist is of little use.  Saying that the context must be
explicit violates a long-held tenet of lojban: that unfilled places can
contain anything that continues to make the sentence valid (in this case
we're talking about the x3 of nitcu).

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/    ***    I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/   ***   to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi