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

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:23:55PM -0500, Craig wrote:
>> > > mi nitcu da. Let's start with that. Do you at least agree that there
>> > > isn't a specific thing which I mean that I need?
>> >
>> > Absolutely not.
>> >
>> > mi nitcu da == There exists an X such that I need it.
>> >
>> > X could be *VERY* specific.  Say the x3 of nitcu is le nu cikre le mi
>> > karce poi finti de'i li pa so no ze ...
>>
>> Great, five posts in a row all expressing the same idea.

>Yep.  Just like your 3 or 4 or whatever.

>> So, you think da is specific, do you? I can't work with you. Carry on.

>Straight out of the book:

>4.2)  da poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim.
>    There-is-an-X which is-a-person : X sees Jim.
>        Someone sees Jim.

But if you ask for da poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim to become true, you
won't care who sees Jim, right?