From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Fri Feb 28 10:21:42 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 18:21:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 12453 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 18:21:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 18:21:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 18:21:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18op8d-0003Qt-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:21:39 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18op7Z-0003QD-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:20:33 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 18op5e-0003PM-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:18:34 -0800 Received: (qmail 10514 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 12:18:24 -0600 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 12:18:24 -0600 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:25:00 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org To: jcowan@reutershealth.com In-Reply-To: <200302281514.KAA11810@mail.reutershealth.com> Message-Id: <2EE0D6C3-4B39-11D7-82B8-000393629ED4@uic.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-archive-position: 4230 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 09:17 AM, 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. The typical lion's sex is unspecified, but is either male or female. If a pride of lions climbs in to my Ford Windstar, I can separately consider each lion as it enters and classify each lion as being typical or atypical. A lion which can not be easily classified as male or female would be an atypical lion. So Woldy's "typical" lion would be classified as atypical. One might also consider the extent to which each lion in the pride is typical, comparing each to the one-in-mind typical lion. My one-in-mind lion happens to be male, so a female lion would be less typical than a male lion, all other traits being equal. -Steven