[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: The Any thread




la xod cusku di'e

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, jjllambias2000 <jjllambias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose that the folllowing are all true:
>
> la meris pendo la djan noi mikce
> la meris na pendo la fred noi mikce
> la meris na pendo la alis noi mikce
>
> Can we assert, based on that info, that:
>
>    la meris pendo lo mikce
>
> ? Yes, Mary is friend to at least one doctor, namely
> John. That of course does not mean that Mary is friend to
> any doctor.

"Is Mary the friend of any doctor at all? Does she have any friends who
are doctors?"

"Why, yes, she is the friend of a doctor."

Correct.

> If someone asks:
>
>    xu la meris pendo lo mikce
>
> We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at
> least one doctor.

How one can be a friend to a nonspecific doctor is hard to imagine.

If you say "she is friendly to doctors" you are not saying that
she is friendly to any specific doctor.

> Now, let's say that:
>
> la meris nitcu la djan noi mikce
> la meris na nitcu la fred noi mikce
> la meris na nitcu la alis noi mikce
>
> Can we assert, based on the above info, that
>
>    la meris nitcu lo mikce
>
> ? Does Mary need at least one doctor? Yes, she does
> need at least one doctor. If someone asks:
>
>    xu la meris nitcu lo mikce
>
> we will answer {go'i}. She needs at least one doctor,
> namely John.


But the John-ness is lost when you use lo mikce.

Yes, certainly.

Under what circumstances,
assuming cooperative communication, would you say such a thing?

Suppose Harry, who doesn't know John, wants to know whether
Mary needs some doctor. He asks {xu la meris nitcu lo mikce}.
I know that Mary needs John, who happens to be a mikce, so
I must answer {go'i}.

Only if
there was no specific doctor identity to work with. Had there been a
specific doctor she needed, you surely would have used le instead.

Not necessarily. In this case, the question was posed with {lo}
and I have to answer {go'i} or {na go'i}. I only have to decide
whether {la meris nitcu lo mikce} is true or false when Mary
needs John, who happens to be a doctor. In traditional Lojban,the answer is unequivocally {go'i}. The way you want {lo} to work,
which I would prefer too, the answer should be {na go'i} if Mary
needs John, a doctor, to help her carry the boxes but is otherwise
healthy and in no need for medical attention.

lo'e is a little heavy-handed. It achieves its nonspecificity by stripping
all distinction away from the doctors. "friendly to doctors" doesn't
necessarily apply to nontypical doctors, whereas lo mikce does include
them

I use {lo'e} the way you say {lo} works, that's all I'm saying.

{lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail