needing books

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

GK> I am going to take a fling at these, I hope it doesn't add to the
confusion which I definitely share.  I'm going to number them too.
------------------------
And>
 How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):

(1).  I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
(2).  There is a specific book such that I need to have it.

(3).  I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
(4).  There  exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.

Yours in more than usual confusion,

And
----------------------
GK> For a specific book I want one of a kind.  I hope that's what you
meant. I've never read it but it's a one word title. I choose the
original manuscript of Beowulf. I call it Beoualf. Another way of
talking about a specific book is to call it "the" book where "the"
is part of what is known as a definite description.  Bertrand Russell is
the author of this version of things. I'll do this both ways.

"The crucial feature of Russell's account is that if a description 'the
P' is being correctly used-that is, if there  exists a P and only
one-then it achieves the same effect as a proper name, in singling out a
unique thing in the world" ( courtesy of Richard Smith).

(1a).  First try to put it in language that is closer to the language of
predicate logic and lojban:

I need the state of: both Beowulf is a book and I possess it.
mi cu nitcu lo za'i ge la zoi gy. beoualf gy. goi ko'e cukta gi me ponse
ko'e
I need the state: both [forethought and] the thing named [quote
nonlojban] beoualf, to which I assign the pronoun it2, is_a_book, and I
own it2.
Without the parser I would never have gotten this straight. It may not
be yet.

(1b).  I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.

I need the state: I have "the" book.
This is Russell's "the". It means there is just one such book [of its
kind].
It is equivalent to a name, here the manuscript Beowulf.

mi nitcu lo za'i mi ponse lo pa cukta
I need the state: I possess what really is the one and only book.[of its
kind]

What I am trying to say by [of its kind] is that there is some universe
of discourse. When Richard Nixon used to say "I am 'the' President", as
he was so fond of doing, he didn't mean he was the one and only
president in the world. He meant he was the only current one in the
United States.  Likewise lo pa cukta means something like original book
about Beowulf.  All this is just my idea of how it ought to work.
There is an explanation of "paboi sumti" where the pa is adjacent to the
sumti in the lessons. I don't think it has been used this way, again its
my idea of how it ought to work.

(2.)  There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
 I need to possess the specific book.
.i mi nitcu lo nu mi ponse lo pa cukta
 I need to possess "the" book.  Russell's "the" again. Our "lo" is close
 to the logical "description operator", known as TAU, which is an
 equivalent form of Russell's "the". lo pa [broda]= "the" [broda].
 You will have to look these things  up to see where I'm coming from.
This is definitely not consensus lojban, but I don't see how else to do
it.

(3). I need there to be an x, such that x is a book & I have x.
   I need the state: x exists, and x is a book and I have x.
.i mi nitcu lo za'i su'o pa da zu'o ge da cukta gi mi ponse da
I need the state: at least one object x exists and both x is_a_book
and I possess it.

(4).  There exists  x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.
.i su'o  da zu'o ije  da cukta ije mi nitcu da
There exists  some x [end prenex] and that x is_a_book and I need
it.

Maybe "need to have" should be nitcu ponse or some such.
If I have worked these examples correctly, and. you owe me something.
This has got to get easier. I am going on vacation for about two weeks
so I won't be able to respond for a while but I would appreciate
feedback.

djer jlk@netcom.com