From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Feb 28 07:36:04 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 15:36:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 63334 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 15:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 15:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 15:36:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18omYM-0007ne-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:36:02 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18omY5-0007m1-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:35:45 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:35:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18omXq-0007j9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:35:30 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1SFZVd05174 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: <20030228143808.GA29375@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20030228102803.T4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4219 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 Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:59:32AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:39:07PM -0500, Craig wrote: > [...] > > > > If "mi nitcu lo mikce" means that I need a doctor, but that there is no > > > > specific doctor that I need, then I need any doctor. If that's not what Any > > > > means to you, then perhaps you could define it for us to better demonstrate > > > > what your problem is. > > > > > > If > > > la bab. nitcu la djan. > > > and > > > la djan. mikce > > > then one can infer that > > > la bab. nitcu lo mikce > > > But you can't infer > > > la bab. nitcu mikce > > > (something like la bab. nitcu ledu'u da mikce vo'a, except that > > > you can't do that). > > > > > > This should show that they're different (provided you agree with > > > it). Someone like And or Nick or Xorxes is more likely to be able > > > to give a better definition of Any than I, but if you don't buy the > > > above I can try. > > > > > > Why would I buy the above? la is specific, so I reject instantly any > > "proof" based on it. > > Ok, I'll put it in logic then. b is bob, j is John, N is nitcu, M > is mikce: > Nbj > Mj > ----- > Nbj & Mj &-intro > Ex(Nbx & Mx) E-intro > Maybe you disagree that the lojban directly corresponds to these > logical formulae, though that seems to be unlikely. If I really need only my family doctor, can I say "mi nitcu lo mikce"? No. You are interpreting "lo mikce" as being valid in cases where I am holding secret, unspoken criteria *in mind* reducing the actual set of doctors that I need down some subset of all doctors. It's the English "There is *A* ... such that..." which is confusing you. You're seeing this and thinking that it means "There exist one or more doctors that I need, but the rest can go lump themselves". But that's expressed with le, not lo. Follow Craig's reduction proof to achieve the proper understanding of da. > > Your understanding of the English word "any" is not shared by me and > > Craig, for whom "any" means nonspecific. You seem to think that "any" is > > somehow specific. Or something. Anyway, Craig's narrowing process, > > starting with da (any thing), and narrowing down to da poi mikce (any > > thing that is a doctor) is canonical, and must be refuted if there are any > > objections. > > Any is not specific. "I need a doctor" (which is Any) says nothing > about which doctor, doesn't assert the existence of such a doctor, > and doesn't suggest that some doctors may suffice and other doctors > may not. > > "There is a doctor that I need", which corresponds to "lo" (and to > Ex(Nbx & Mx)) claims that the doctor(s) exists, implies that some > suffice and some don't (or you'd say "ro" instead of su'o), and > also says nothing about which doctor, so it is not specific. But ro means I need every doctor, so that if you bring me 9000 doctors, I'll thank you and ask you to keep them coming. -- What would Jesus bomb?