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

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> 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.

Ok, we agree here. At least one member has to make the sentence true.

Then you contradict what you just said:

> HOWEVER,
> you can't pick which one (other than by restrictions),

If I can't pick which one, then {lo remna cu mamta mi} is false.

> so "lo tanxe ka'e
> vasru le zdani dinju is true if there is some box somewhere that is capable
> of doing so.

I agree.

> I suspect that the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space
> Center qualifies as such a box.  Hence it is a true statement.

Agreed. The point about "you can't pick which one" is inconsistent with
the rest of what you say.

> The problem comes with statements about "lo unicorn", which doesn't exist.

But this is a different problem. The "any" problem applies to boxes as much
as to unicorns.

> 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.

Yes, but {mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} doesn't mean the same that "I need a
 unicorn"
usually does in English.

{mi nitcu lo pavyseljirna} means something like:

        da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da

while "I need a unicorn" normally means:

        mi nitcu le nu da poi pavyseljirna zo'u mi ponse da

Do you agree that those two sentences say something different from the other?

Jorge