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."
If someone asks:
xu la meris pendo lo mikce
We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at
least one doctor.
That again does not at all mean that
Mary needs any doctor, all we are saying is that there
is at least one that she needs.
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.
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