Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (mi nitcu lo tanxe)

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

JL>So I should never say {lo remna cu mamta mi} because it is very unlikely,
JL>(indeed outright false) that just 'any' remna will do. Is that really what
JL>{lo} means?

No.  I was just discussing this with Nora.  Since the default quantification
of "lo" is "su'o" outside, then statements about "lo remna" are true if at
least one of the members (non-specific) will make the sentence true.  HOWEVER,
you can't pick which one (other than by restrictions), so "lo tanxe ka'e
vasru le zdani dinju is true if there is some box somewhere that is capable
of doing so.  I suspect that the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space
Center qualifies as such a box.  Hence it is a true statement.  Probably not
a useful statement.

The problem comes with statements about "lo unicorn", which doesn't exist.
1)  They actually do exist - there have been photos published of 1-horned
goats ..., but these don't fit the definition of "ba'e le unikorn" that
most people refer to
2)  In MOST statements about unicorns, the universe of discourse is not the
'real world', but  aworld where unicorns DO exist.  In a fantasy world, I need
a unicorn is a perfectly acxcetpable statement.
3)  The logical content of "lo unicorn" is clearly tied to "if unicorns exist
then at least one of the set".  But it is less clear what it means if there are
no unicorns.  My inclination would be to say that such a statement immediately
throws the universe of discourse into a subjunctive 'fantasy' one, where there
IS at least one unicorn - the description is veridical in referring to a set of
properties that such a unicorn MUST have (unlike le unikorn, which needn't have
anything to do with unicorns), though it is somewhat intensional as the set of
properties being ascribed is a set that describes no such creature.  Thus
you are saying:  I need a se ckaji rolo ka unikorn, but do not claim that such
a se ckaji really exists.

lojbab