[lojban] Re: xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- And Rosta wrote:
> IIUC, "mi nitcu lo mikce" will have a meaning that 
> generalizes over the two more particular readings "I need 
> a doctor" can have (viz "There's a doctor who I need"
> vs. "I need a doctor, any doctor, (tho there may be
> no such doctor)". 

"There is at least one doctor such that I need that doctor"
would be {mi nitcu su'o lo mikce} or equivalently
{su'o da poi mikce zo'u mi nitcu da}. 

{mi nitcu lo mikce} is not a "there is" claim any more than 
{la djan cu dansu} is a "there is" claim. It's not a claim
about what there is but rather a claim that the referent
of {mi} is in a certain relationship with the referent of
{lo mikce}. 

>(And likewise for "mi nitcu re mikce".)

"mi nitcu re mikce" says that among the things that are doctors
there are exactly two, no more and no less, that I need. This
may be true for example if I need Dr Jones and Dr Smith and no
other doctor, or if I need a cardiologist and an oncologist and
no other doctor. It depends on what counts as a doctor in the 
context. 

> Is there a straightforward way of expressing each of 
> the two readings distinctly?

In the case of {re mikce}, we could say {mi nitcu re klesi be 
lo mikce} vs {mi nitcu re prenu poi mikce}, for example, to 
distinguish two kinds of doctor from two persons who are doctors. 
If what you need is a doctor pair for some reason (irrespective
of specialities), then {mi nitcu lo re mikce} would be the way
to say it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250