From jcowan@reutershealth.com Fri Feb 28 07:18:17 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 28 Feb 2003 15:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 76148 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 15:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 15:18:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 15:18:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18omHB-0006nb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:18:17 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18omGf-0006lB-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:17:45 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [65.246.141.36] (helo=mail.reutershealth.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18omGO-0006kG-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:17:28 -0800 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11810; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:14:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200302281514.KAA11810@mail.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:17:24 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) To: mbays@freeshell.org Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:17:24 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: from "Martin Bays" at Feb 28, 2003 03:12:50 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 4217 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: John Cowan Reply-To: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan Martin Bays scripsit: > Oh dear. If I've understood your meaning of "any" correctly - you need a > doctor, and what's more you need a doctor precisely because of its > doctorishness, and don't care about specific identity or other properties > - then this is precisely the kind of circumstance in which I'd use lo'e. > I need "the typical" doctor - I need "the result of squinting over the set > of all things which doctor". > > I'm guessing that's wrong. Anyone feel like explaining why? Because "lo'e mikce" is an abstraction bearing only the typical features of doctors. As Woldy says, the typical lion is neither male nor female, though all actual lions are one or the other. If you want lo'e mikce, you will not get much doctoring from it. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is dramatically overdescribed. Still other languages are simultaneously overdescribed and underdescribed. Welsh pertains to the third category. --Alan King