[lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly)

[Invent Yourself <xod@thestonecutters.net>]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:42:33PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:23:55PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> > > > mi nitcu da. Let's start with that. Do you at least agree that there
> > > > isn't a specific thing which I mean that I need?
> > >
> > > Absolutely not.
> > >
> > > mi nitcu da == There exists an X such that I need it.
> > >
> > > X could be *VERY* specific.  Say the x3 of nitcu is le nu cikre le mi
> > > karce poi finti de'i li pa so no ze ...
> >
> > Great, five posts in a row all expressing the same idea.
>
> Yep.  Just like your 3 or 4 or whatever.
>
> > So, you think da is specific, do you? I can't work with you. Carry on.
>
> Straight out of the book:
>
> 4.2)  da poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim.
>     There-is-an-X which is-a-person : X sees Jim.
>         Someone sees Jim.
>
> If you think this means the same thing as "any person sees me",
> including the *BLIND* *ONES*, then you're right, we can't work this out.



I composed a lengthy, detailed post and deleted it all, in favor of
instead referring you to post number 18674, which I endorse. I will post
the relevant section here. Craig wrote it.

"mi nitcu da. Let's start with that. Do you at least agree that there
isn't a specific thing which I mean that I need? Okay, good. Now onto da
poi mikce. That means that the da must be a doctor, but ads no further
restrictions. Now onto lo. mi nitcu lo mikce = mi nitcu da poi mikce. We
already agreed on that one. Therefore, I am expressing Any with this
usage. QED."



-- 
What would Jesus bomb?