Re: [lojban] "Any" and {ro}

[Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>]

ko dunda pa plise mi is "make it true that there exists exactly one apple that you give to me." If you have an apple in mind and say that, then you're not conveying that you have one in mind at all. So yeah, {pa plise} does work here.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 09:22:41PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Fine, whatever. Whether or not I'm wrong about the equivalence of {pa
> plise} and {pa lo plise}, my statement that {pa plise} suffices for "any
> apple" is still valid.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how it could.

If {pa plise} means "exactly one apple", then how does this _exclude_
that you know which apple you are talking about?

I really like the proposed phrase {ko dunda da poi plise ku'o mi}.
Syntactically it does not really state that I don't know/care which thing I'm talking
about the same way "any", "irgendein", etc. do it, but due to pragmatics it seems to work out.
At least I can't construct a reading which involves me wanting a specific apple.
In such a situation uttering this phrase seems inappropriate to me.

Any opinions?


v4hn

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.