From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Feb 28 19:30:02 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 03:30:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 96094 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2003 03:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2003 03:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 03:30:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18oxhI-00026m-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:30:00 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oxgx-00025G-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:29:39 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18oxgp-00023e-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:29:31 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A8FC547A014A; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:29:00 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:29:05 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030301014713.GA33029@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4251 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> > > 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. >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. No, it can't. Not when some of us have no training in predicate logic and can only follow the discussion with Lojban instead of Logji.