Re: TECH: RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i tcati

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

CB>But suppose I need a huge box to put my house in.  No such box exists. I
CB>can  look disapprovingly at my big, unboxed, house, and say "I need a box",
CB>but  it would be wrong to say "da poi pa tanxe zo'u: mi nitce da", which
CB>claims  not only that I need a box, but that such a box already exists!

OK.  This now looks somewhat familiar.  "lo iunikorno does NOT claim that
unicorns exist, merely that if such a thing exists, I am referring to one
(nonspecific) member of the set that has such properties.  That set may be
the empty set (and there is some funny truth value stuff involved when that
happens, but I think John C. and pc workewd it out so that statements about
descriptions that are met only by the empty set are still meaningful and
useful.

"lo tanxe" is NOT the same thing as "da poi tanxe"; likewise

"pa tanxe is NOT the same as "pa da poi tanxe".  Thus it is improper to
export the quantifier to the prenex as you did in:

CB>The discussion hinges on the fact that all lojban sumti can be quantified
CB>in  the prenex without any change in meaning.  "mi nitce pa tanxe" means
CB>the  same as "da poi pa tanxe zo'u: mi nitce da".  I.e.  There's a box out
CB>there  somewhere, and I need it.  It implies there is some box in
CB>existence, and  you're saying that you need that particular box.

(You wanted:
 pada poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
which is the same as
mi nitcu da poi tanxe
but not necessarilt the same as
mi nitcu pa [lo] tanxe

)

Now "mi nitcu pa tanxe", which is NOT restricted, does say that ANY member
of the (unrestricted) set of things that 'are boxes' will satisfy your
need.  If you want a box for the house, you MUST restrict the set:
mi nitcu pa tanxe poi [ka'e] vasru le zdani dinju
I need 1 of the (hypothetical) boxes that is innately capable of containing the
nest-building (that I have in mind).

Only if I am incorrect in remebering what the bottom line of "lo" was, does
my argument fail.

lojbab