RE: [lojban] Re: The Any thread

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la kreig cusku di'e

> >>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}.

I think it should be equivalent. I think {lo} should be used
for the generic (in fact something very similar to Loglan's
original {lo}), but in Lojban so far {lo broda} has been defined
as {da poi broda}, an ordinary quantification with transparent
scope.


> 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.

 la meris na nitcu ro mikce

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

 la meris nitcu ro mikce naku

> >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.

Then we disagree on what it is but agree on what it should be.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail