Re: TECH: "any" & quantification

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

la kris cusku di'e

> 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".

Excellent idea.

> 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 (??)

The second one is "Any one person is my mother".
Pretty meaningless, but consider a more contrived situation;

Say there are three women in front of us, and I tell you

        xa'a pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
        One of the three women is my mother.

That's clear. Now the other case is

        xe'e pa le ci ninmu cu mamta xa'a mi
        Any one of the three women is my mother.

(Because we are actors, and in a play we're doing, the role of
mother is played by any of them, so only one is my mother, but
any one.)

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

Any (one) of us likes any (one) of youse.

Which doesn't say much. (It doesn't mean that every one likes everyone,
even though the English version could be read like that.)

> 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"?

Correct, as far as I understand it. I say unmarked should always be xa'a,
while lojbab (I think) says that for {nitcu} it should be xe'e and for the
others 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.

I can't think of any examples that don't involve {nitcu} or {djica}, or
maybe {cpedu}, for which the xe'e marking would be natural for {lo broda}.

> 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"?

I'd say useless rather than meaningless in that case.

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

Does {mi viska lo pavyseljirna} assert existance, or the fact that there
are no unicorns makes the sentence false?

Your "xa'a" asserts existance as much as "lo" does, as far as I can tell.

> (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?)

I don't think there is such a list, at least I've never seen it.

Jorge