any

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

la djer cusku di'e

>         There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
> __________________________________________________________________________
> I think the below sentences translate this accurately. The style is
> another question.
>
> 1. roda tanxe da inaja mi nitcu da
     roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da tu'u
> For all X: X is a box implies I need X.
> If X is a box, I need it.
>
> 2.roda poi tanxe ku'o mi nitcu da
    roda poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
> For all X which is a box, I need X

Those say "I need every box".

But I need only one, so they can't be equivalent to "I need any box".

GK>     I beg to differ.  "I need every box" would be:

        mi nitcu ro lo tanxe.

        This is quite different from the structures above.
        I think you're going off course on the " roda"
        quantifier. Here are some quotes from THE LANGUAGE OF FIRST
        ORDER LOGIC by Barwise & Etchemendy:

        "Universal quantifier (upside down A).
        This symbol is used to express universal claims, those we
        express in English using such terms as 'everything, each thing,
        all things, and anything'.  It is always used in connection with
        one of the variables u,v,w,x,.., and so is said to be a variable
        binding operator. The combination Ax is read, "for every object
        x," or (somewhat misleadingly) "for all x". {Footnote}:We
        encourage students to use the first locution when reading
        formulas, at least for a few weeks, since we have seen many
        students who have misunderstood the basic function of variables
        as a result of reading them the second way." {End footnote}

        roda is our notation for the universal quantifier used in
        connection with the variable x.   It is to be
        read then as "for every object x".

        roda zo'u tu'e da tanxe inaja mi nitcu da

        says "for every object x such that x is a box, it is implied
        that I want that object." That object is one box and I want
        it.  Which one is not specified. There is no implication that a
        box search is underway so that there is a recursive collection
        formed of all boxes. You wouldn't do this with your statement.
        I think that my statement can fairly be said to express your
        statement:  " I want any box whatsoever."


> I would say too that the word "any" does give rise to
> a number of problems of ambiguity in English and carrying it over to
> lojban might be a problem there.

I agree we shouldn't just have a word that means "any". What we need is
something to translate some of the things that can be said in English
using the word "any", and that seemingly can't be said in Lojban.
(There might be a way to say it using the existing words. If so, I'd
like to know what it is.)

Jorge

GK>     I am not categorically against "any" in the language.
        I would need to see some indispensible uses of "any". Remember,
        I am new at this too, and conclusions we reach could be at
        serious odds with the logic community. Queremos una lengua pura,
        no una lengua cualquiera. We want a pure language, not any
        language whatsoever. Now how do you say that in lojban?

        djer jlk@netcom.com