TECH: "any" & quantification

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

I've been following the "any" discussion avidly, but everytime I try to
participate I notice myself flip-flopping on the issue.  It's very
confusing, and the only thing I've convinced myself of is that there's
something lojbab is saying that Jorge is missing and vice-versa.

Suppose (only for the sake of discussion!) we had a manditory particle
before every sumti in lojban, a choice of either "xe'e" meaning
referentially opaque, or "xa'a" meaning referentially clear.  That makes the
"box" example easy to analyze:  "xa'a mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe" means "I need
a box" and "xa'a mi nitcu xa'a lo tanxe" means "There is a box I need".

Maybe it would help to make that assumption for a while just for the purpose
of exploring what the implications would be on other sentences.

xa'a pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - One person is my mother
xe'e pa remna cu mamta xa'a mi - Only one person can be my mother (??)

xa'a mi nelci xa'a do - Some of us like some of youse
xe'e mi nelci xe'e do - ???

Am I correct in thinking that the current disagreement between Jorge and
Lojbab is whether unmarked sumti in real lojban are equivalent to sumti
marked with "xe'e" or "xa'a"?  If so, let's do more translations with these
two markings and see which one comes out more like the way we think lojban
is currently defined.

Or could it be that the marking is only possible in certain place
structures, and it is meaningless to contemplate "xe'e mi nelci xe'e do"?

By the way, is "xa'a" as I've defined it the same as asserting existence?

(if "xa'a" isn't an unassigned cmavo and actually means something already,
the my apologies and could someone clued in on the "experimental list" pick
a better one?)
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~