RE: [lojban] Re: The Any thread

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

><snip>
>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).