Re: any

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

la veion cusku di'e

>   Say, we have a game of cards. You mix the deck of cards, take one
>   card and put it face down on the table. Until you turn the card
>   you have just ANY ONE of the cards. There is no way I can say
>   you don't have an ace.

You can say it, and it will be either true or false. That you don't
know whether it's true or false is another matter.

You seem to be proposing that non-specific quantification (any outer
quantification other than {ro}) be always treated as opaque. This
is possible in theory, but then you can't use Lojban to make logical
statements the way we usually understand them.

>              mi ponse ci tanxe
>
>   If you express no restrictions (and no box is identified as belonging
>   to someone else) then any box up to the count of 3 can be said to
>   belong to you.

>   It's just sloppiness of usage if I say {mi ponse ci tanxe} when I
>   actually mean something like {mi ponse le ci vi tanxe}.

I agree the two mean different things. In the second claim you are
identifying the boxes. But even though you are not identifying them
in the first claim, I think the claim says that the relationship holds
for three of them that can (ka'e) be identified.


Jorge