RE: [lojban] Re: The Any thread

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

>>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.

>And presumably you would say the same for {la meris pendo
>lo mikce}, that the friendship is not towards a specific doctor?

Friendship, when asserted, is extended toward doctors as individuals, rather
than toward (any member of the set of doctors). Thus, it is more reasonable
in the pendo case to discuss it as a question, since interrogators need not
have a specific doctor in mind - even for pendo. If I ask {xu la meris pendo
lo mikce}, the answer will be either {go'i} or {na go'i} depending on
whether she has any friends who are doctors.

>>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.

>Why must it in the pendo case but not in the nitcu case?

Because it is possible for her to need (any one of the set of all doctors)
without needing any specific doctor. This is not true for pendo.

>>But if so, that is not
>>indicated by the sentence.

>Of course. In neither sentence is any specific doctor mentioned.

And, in neither sentence is it reasonable for a listener to interpret a
specific doctor as being intended. Indeed, it is unreasonable for the
listener to interpret that {la meris nitcu lo mikce} means she needs a
specific doctor even without interpreting which doctor. Pendo is generally a
bad predicate for discussing Any, since it is hard to imagine it with an Any
x2 in declaritives.

>>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}.

>And if she is friend of Doctor Bar, and SPECIFICALLY Doctor Bar,
>can one truthfully still say that {la meris pendo lo mikce}?

Yes. But, as I say, the context of Any is not really applicable to pendo
outside of questions.

>>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.

>Right. But there is no conflict in standard Lojban. In Standard
>Lojban the first sentence just claims that there is at least one
>doctor that she needs, and it is perfectly compatible with her
>not needing any other doctor.

No, the first sentence claims that she needs a doctor. I have not put it
like this to avoid (misplaced) claims of the M-word, but I frankly see {mi
nitcu lo mikce} as equivalent to English {I need a doctor}.

>In fact, if she needs John to help her carry some boxes, and
>John happens to be a doctor, then {la meris cu nitcu lo mikce}
>would be true in standard Lojban, even though she does not need
>the doctor in his capacity of doctor. It is still true that there
>is a doctor that she needs (namely John, she needs John, a doctor,
>to help her carry the boxes).

Technically, since her ternitcu is unspecified, that could be the case. But
it would be clear from context; otherwise the sentence is not an act of
communication, it is an example only.

>>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.

>The negation only says that it is false that she needs every
>other doctor. If she needs all others but one, then it is false
>that she needs every one.

Ah, that was how I understood (part of) the difference between na and na'e.
Care to explain how to express the difference between the following, in
concise Lojban:

1. It would be untrue to assert that for every x that is a doctor, meris
needs x.
2. It would be true to assert that for every x that is a doctor, meris
doesn't need x.

>>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).

>I think I understand what you want from {lo}. I would want it
>defined that way too. But it is not that in traditional Lojban.

That's where I have to disagree with you. I think that *is* the meaning of
lo.