From xod@thestonecutters.net Fri Feb 28 17:19:15 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 1 Mar 2003 01:19:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 73091 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2003 01:19:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2003 01:19:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 01:19:14 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ovek-00083K-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:19:14 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oveW-00082q-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:19:00 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:18:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oveP-00082Z-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:18:53 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h211ItB11751 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:18:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:18:55 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: <20030301003935.GA32533@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20030228200747.M9999-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4248 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 02:21:58PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > > 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: > [...] > > > > "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! > > I agree with robin, except for his terminology. It's specific under > the way you are saying specific, but it is not +specific in the way > that "le" is. > > So. "da viska mi" means "there is something which sees me". And > even if the speaker knows *which* thing sees them, they can still > make this nonspecific claim. > > How can you tell it is nonspecific? Because a legitimate response > to "Something sees me" is "Yeah, but *what* sees you?". If I had > instead said "the dog sees me", you cannot respond that way, because > I just told you (instead you would have to say "which dog sees you" > (or {le ki'a gerku})). This is still a second claim that's being made, different from the first claim. So it is nonetheless true that the *statement* mi nitcu lo mikce ranges over every doctor, even if the asker later modifies the claim and reduces the subset. The original claim is falsified by the rejection of a single doctor. So, while mi nitcu da could refer to a state of needing something more specific than {any thing}, that's not what THIS claim says. And da emerges as {any thing} once more. -- What would Jesus bomb?