From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Feb 28 17:40:55 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 01:40:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 64336 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2003 01:40:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2003 01:40:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 01:40:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18ovzi-0008MG-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:40:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ovzY-0008Lr-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:40:45 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18ovzQ-0008Lg-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:40:37 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h211lDbE033398 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:47:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h211lDYW033397 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:47:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:47:13 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Message-ID: <20030301014713.GA33029@allusion.net> References: <20030301003935.GA32533@allusion.net> <20030228200747.M9999-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030228200747.M9999-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4249 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:18:55PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:21:58PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: [...] > > > 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})). >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > The original claim is falsified by the rejection of a single doctor. >=20 > 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 emerge= s > as {any thing} once more. Ok. Xod, do you reject or agree that "mi djica lo mikce" is the same logically as "Ex(Mx & Dmx)". If you reject, then obviously we shouldn't continue discussing this. If you agree, then let's talk about the logical formula and ignore Lojban so that this can be more quickly settled. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+YBEhDrrilS51AZ8RAlTdAKDSrfNNFXgsohhGuUQTzpGIGq57IQCgq1Xk yqI+sW+EJe6+2FqnJvloOzc= =UfPa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--