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

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

la lojbab spusku di'e

> JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
> JL>I need it".
>
> No, I don't think that is a correct translation.  It means "I need exactly
> one out of the set of things that 'box'.  It is not specific as to which of
> the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
> and it veridically is a box.

Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the biggest.

Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?

> I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u  da tanxe gi'e se nitcu
 mi"

Yes, but I thought that {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means exactly that.

Does {mi ponse pa tanxe} mean the same as {pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se ponse
 mi}?
If so (as I think) then why should it work for {ponse} and not for {nitcu}?

> "lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
> you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.

I agree that it is non-specific. The issue is whether it is "identifiable"
or "non-identifiable" (probably the wrong technical terms).

> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
> benefit of R Holmes).

I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".

        mi nelci loi xruli
        I like flowers

doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?

Why should

        mi nitcu loi xruli
        I need flowers

mean that I need any flower whatsoever?

I don't think there's any problem with {lo} either. The only problem is
that we don't have any easy way to refer to that sense of "any". (Something
like "ajn" in Esperanto.) I think that either a PA with that sense, or an
attitudinal like {po'o} could be the answer.

Abstractions work too, in the sense that I can say:

        mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
        I need that I have a box.

and I suppose this is the sort of problem that made {djica} unable to
take a simple object. But I don't like that solution, because it is either
too complicated, forcing you to use {ponse} or some other relationship
when you don't want to, or it is too ambiguous {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe}.

There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."

Jorge