From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Feb 28 11:22:39 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 19:22:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 34601 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 19:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2003 19:22:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 19:22:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oq5e-0004Mi-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:22:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oq5J-0004Kd-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:22:17 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oq4y-0004JS-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:21:56 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1SJLw207919 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: <20030228191121.GZ17252@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: <20030228141257.M4979-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4238 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, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:42:33PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:23:55PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > > > > > mi nitcu da. Let's start with that. Do you at least agree that > > > > > > there isn't a specific thing which I mean that I need? > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely not. > > > > > > > > > > mi nitcu da == There exists an X such that I need it. > > > > > > > > > > X could be *VERY* specific. Say the x3 of nitcu is le nu cikre > > > > > le mi karce poi finti de'i li pa so no ze ... > > > > > > > > Great, five posts in a row all expressing the same idea. > > > > > > Yep. Just like your 3 or 4 or whatever. > > > > > > > So, you think da is specific, do you? I can't work with you. Carry > > > > on. > > > > > > Straight out of the book: > > > > > > 4.2) da poi prenu zo'u da viska la djim. There-is-an-X which > > > is-a-person : X sees Jim. > > > Someone sees Jim. > > > > > > If you think this means the same thing as "any person sees me", > > > including the *BLIND* *ONES*, then you're right, we can't work this > > > out. > > > > I composed a lengthy, detailed post and deleted it all, in favor of > > instead referring you to post number 18674, which I endorse. I will > > post the relevant section here. Craig wrote it. > > > > "mi nitcu da. Let's start with that. Do you at least agree that there > > isn't a specific thing which I mean that I need? > > And as I said to Craig, no, I don't. I agree that there exists some > thing that you need. The scope of your need is still undefined. What can I say? It's wrong. Using da to mean something that you have in mind would make da specific. And it would make lo specific. But lo is not specific. I think even Jordan would agree with this; he once tried to convince me that even when da was limited to refer to a single item, it STILL isn't specific! > You never answered my question, by the way. Do you believe that "da poi > prenu zo'u da viska la djim." means that any human, including the blind > ones, can see Jim? If I endorse Craig's post, and Craig shows that the poi clause limits the valid range of da, then therefore I agree with you here. So yes: explicitly-given context circumscribes the range of da. I didn't answer it because that's not what's being disputed here. -- What would Jesus bomb?