Re: any

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>This gives me an idea. Why not {mi xanto kalte} for the opaque
>claim? Similarly {mi tanxe nitcu}. Of course, if someone comes
>asking me {do xanto kalte ma}, I wouldn't know what to respond.

I thought of this, too, and I started to post the suggestion but I deleted
my message because I talked myself out of it, because "mi nitcu xe'e lo
tanxe" seems to make some sort of a logical statement, while "mi tanxe
nitcu" is vague by definition.

But I don't really like "xe'e", and maybe an explicit notion of opacity
isn't really necessary for the language to be complete, if you can say what
you need to say without using it.

There are two problems which jump to mind though:

        Is it OK to allow the implied transparent "zo'e" to sit there in the
x2         place when we're trying to be opaque?  Or can the "obvious value" of
        zo'e happen to be "ne'e"?

        How do you say "I need two boxes?" I like "mi me re tanxe me'u nitcu"
        semantically, but its not very zipfy.  "mi remei tanxe nitcu" is a
        little zipfier and vaguer.  "mi nitce co me re tanxe"

>Of course, if someone comes
>asking me {do xanto kalte ma}, I wouldn't know what to respond.

I think that's OK, even though opaque and transparent don't occur together
in English.

        mi xanto kalte          I'm hunting elephants!
        .i go'i ma?             Which one(s) in particular?
        .i go'i ne'e            None in particular.
   OR
        .i go'i la dambos.      I'm hunting elephants, specifically Dumbo
        .i .o'onai do palci     Oooh, you're evil!

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~