Re: [lojban] searching

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Howsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English?  It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate.  So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x. Not, notice, {mi sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense, not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would have").  This still supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD, so the property sense is still better.  Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too, but no one seems to like {tu'a} and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.

---

From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching

Yes, we still don't have an "any" in lojban.
We discussed that for the last 3 weeks.

Still, I don't see that {mi sisku lo crino} fails to mean the right thing
- given that we don't have an "any". If you think that is the problem, go
back to the last discussion and continue it -
It means something like "I'm looking for something that is green".

Talking about existence again. The {lo crino} introduces {da poi crino}
into the context. This, however, does in my opinion not need to be a
specific _physical_ item at this moment. The {da} is one object in the
universe of discourse, which _only_ has the primitive property {da crino} for now.
This object in the UD does not have to map to a physical object(talking about unicorns)
and might also have multiple physical objects it _can_ map to.
Looking for (any)something green, you _do_ have an object, in the sense
of an element in the universe of discourse, in mind. Namely,
an item, whos only relevant property is being green.
If someone points you to a blade of grass and you are not satified with it,
then you have additional constraints which you didn't mention up to then.
Still, you can go on and specify {go'i fe lo crino creka} or something like that,
adding more specific properties to the object in the UD and therefore
restricting the possible physical objects it can refer to.

If you have a specific item in mind, on the other hand, surly you can
just say {mi sisku le crino} and there are no problems with that.

On the basis of this interpretation, it seems to work out well,
to say {mi sisku lo crino} if you mean to say that you are looking
for something green.

{ma pinka}


v4hn

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Ian Johnson wrote:
> Look at the "any" discussion, as it's the same idea. {lo crino} can very
> well have only one referent, even if there are many green things in the UD.
> It *shouldn't *have only one referent, if the distinction matters to you as
> the speaker; that's (part of?) what {le} is for. But it can anyway. This
> means you can't say "I'm looking for a green thing" and be absolutely
> certain that your listener knows you don't care which one (without a
> separate bridi).
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o

-- 
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.