From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Feb 28 07:51:08 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 15:51:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 52204 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 15:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 15:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 15:51:08 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ommy-00009b-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:51:08 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18omme-00008K-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:50:48 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ommC-00005q-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:50:20 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1SFoMx05358 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:50:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:50:22 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030228104327.P4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4222 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, Martin Bays wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Cowan wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > "...So the typical lion has no particular sex, but does have a color > (golden brown), a residence (Africa), a diet (game), and so on." > > Then surely lo'e mikce has no particular sex - which is fine, we don't > care about the sex - but does have an occupation (medicine), and does have > a relevant ability (that of healing you) - which is precisely what you > *do* care about. lo'e might be a decent rendering of "I need a doctor", but in English, "any" specifically means nonspecific, extending over all doctors, including atypical ones. -- What would Jesus bomb?