general response on needing books

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Thanks to Jorge, Lojbab, Djer & Randall for their replies
to my query, which I repeat here:
> How do you distinguish, (preferably in non-pedantic usage):
> (1a).  I need there to be a specific book such that I have it.
> (1b).  There is a specific book such that I need to have it.
> (2a).  I need there to be x, such that x is a book & I have x.
> (2b).  There  exists x, such that x is a book & I need to have x.

None of the replies wholly answered my intended query (because
my intention was not in the least apparent from my wording).

Let me explain, with an altered example: "I need you to have
a book", instead of "I need to have a book". My idea was that
the +/- specific distinction (LE v. LO) cuts across the transparent/
opaque distinction. (1a-b) are +specific, (2a-b) are -specific, (1a,2a)
are opaque, (1b,2b) are transparent.

One of (1a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
   (1a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse le cukta
One of (2a-b) (or maybe, ambiguously, both) is, in Lojban:
   (2a/b) Mi nitcu le/lo nu do ponse lo cukta

I should clarify what I mean by (1a) (specific & opaque): I don't
necessarily have the referent of 'le cukta' in mind, but were it to
come to evaluating the truth of the lenu clause I would have a
specific referent of 'le cukta' in mind. "I need there to be a specific
book such that you have it" - in order to decide whether my need has
been satisfied, you have first to find out which specific book this is;
but I think it should be possible for me to say "X needs there to be
a specific book such that Y has it" without me having decided which
specific book this is.

Further remarks.
(i) My impression so far is that (1a/b) and (2a/b) really are ambiguous
in Lojban. (This is currently being disputed on the List.)
(ii) (2a/b) can be disambiguated by using "da (zohu)" either inside or
outside the lenu clause. BUT this is pedantic & not normal usage.
(iii) (1a/b) cannot be disambiguated.

A new suggested solution: LE & LO are transparent (wide scope, with
quantification/reference assignment outside their clause). But when
combined with a certain cmavo (e.g. Jorge's xehe) they are opaque
(narrow scope, with quantification/reference assignment outside their
clause). Note that under my proposal "xehe" is used in tandem with
LE/LO, not instead of them.

Incidentally, contra Jorge, I think "mi nitcu lo tanxe" is illicit sumti
raising: what you really need is some state of affairs to be the case,
such that its not being the case would be disadvantageous. A "less
wordy" locution would require us to not say what we mean.

I agree with Jorge (& others) that massification is not relevant.

My proposals don't solve the "any whatsoever" problem. Some but not
all of these problems are solved by using wide scope universal quantification:

     You may read all of the books.
           It is permitted that for all x such that x is one of the books
            you read x.
     You may read any of the books.
           For all x such that x is one of the books it is permitted
            that you read x.

But this, I feel, doesn't handle "You may read any three of the books"
(i.e. a total of three books, selected freely from the set of all of
the books). So maybe here a new quantifier is needed, as Jorge has been
arguing.

-----
And