From xod@thestonecutters.net Thu Feb 27 12:03:46 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 27 Feb 2003 20:03:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 10351 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2003 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 20:03:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oUFs-0002YH-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:03:44 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oUFc-0002Xu-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:03:28 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oUFV-0002Xb-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:03:21 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1RK3LP95998 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:03:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:03:21 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030227145641.F95554-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4195 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote: > The Any problem (how to say Any shark as distinct from A shark in the > completely general case) admits of several solutions, none perfect, > although we're now putting more thought into it; when we go into > non-existing entities, we add something like {tu'o lo se ka co'e} or > something (to be thrashed out), as distinct from {lo co'e} (which > commits to existence of the referent; And, this was the coup John and I > pulled on you in NYC.) If you're not worried about stating the existence of the thing, lo is just fine for "any". This is true in the cases of doctors and boxes. If you slaughter all doctors and crush all boxes, you win, I'm wrong. I suppose da'icu'i can be used to relieve the pressure of making an existence claim. And lo jai ka is just like lo except that it might not assert existence of the thing. (jaika is preferable to seka only because ka doesn't have an official 2nd place.) -- What would Jesus bomb?