Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I don't see the problem.  If you want exactly one box, you want
> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'.  That means 'any box' unless I have
> missed the point of this discussion.

{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".


la i,n cusku di'e

> Jorge's {xe'e} = "any":
>
> This strikes me as pretty dubious semantically (even more
> problematical than {po'o} = only).  "Any" is kind of ambiguous
> between "all" and "one".

We can make it as unambiguous as we care to. "Any one of all" is
not the same as "each" and is not the same as "one".

(I would prefer that {xe'e} not be restricted to one, but this would
probably be the default. Then {paxe'e}, {rexe'e}, etc. for "any one",
"any two" etc.)

>     xe'eti ka'e se pilno
>     Any of these will do.
>
> might as well be
>
>     roti ka'e se pilno
>     All of these are usable.
>     Each of these is capable of being used.

Yes, because the English expression in this case is somewhat ambiguous,
but the meanings are different. In the first case I say that only one can
be used, but it can be any of these. The "innateness" of {ka'e} complicates
the issue, though. How about

      mi ba dunda xe'eti do
      I will give you any (one) of these.

It is different from

      mi ba dunda roti do
      I will give you each of these.

and different from

      mi ba dunda pati do
      I will give you one of these. (Guess which one.)


> (I've previously on occasion advocated translating {ro} as
> "each" rather than "all".  It means the same in the simple cases,
> and helps demonstrate problems similar to the one we're discussing
> here in the more complicated ones.)

I agree. "Each" is much better, because "all" can suggest a massification
that is not there.

BTW, what is so problematic about {po'o}? I've seen this complaint a few
times, but never read any description of what the problem might be.

And now that you mention it, it may well be that an attitudinal of the
{po'o} type could be used instead of a PA, as I proposed.

Jorge