From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Mar 02 18:18:06 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 02:18:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 51728 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 02:18:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 02:18:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 02:18:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18pfWn-0002bb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:18:05 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pfWg-0002b7-00; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:17:58 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:17:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pfWX-0002aw-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:17:49 -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 h232OIK4013994 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:24:24 -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 h232OI9t013993 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:24:18 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:24:18 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Message-ID: <20030303022418.GA13463@allusion.net> References: <20030302192515.O29805-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030302192515.O29805-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4275 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 --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 07:38:23PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, And Rosta wrote: [...] > But "I need any doctor" is being used by Robin & Jordan (and > > Nick) to paraphrase a different meaning, one equivalent to > > > > 1. I need there to be a lojban dictionary > > > > whereas "mi nitcu lo lojbo valsi cukta" means > > > > 2. There is a lojban dictionary that I need (there to be) > > > > -- plainly these two sentences have different truth conditions. > > > > So instead of arguing whether "lo" means "any" (my Expert Opinion > > is that the answer is 25% Yes and 75% No!), I would ask Craig > > & xod to try to translate "I need a lojban dictionary" into > > Lojban, given that the normal reading of that sentence is > > equivalent to 1 and not to 2. I know you asked Craig & xod, but I cannot resist. My method is mi djica tu'a lo jbovla ke skicu cukta which is the propositionalism approach. Probably short for mi djica su'u da jbovla ke skicu cukta However, this still doesn't *really* work because we have no gadri which can go in that and work. (No, tu'o does not work either, tu'o is lo). > mi nitcu lo da'i [cu'i] lojbo valcku I don't think this use of da'i is valid, because it breaks lo. lo is an existentially quantified description, because it is defined in terms of su'o da. "lo da'i" is essentially a contradiction, or perhaps a tautology. It's something like saying "Maybe there is a dictionary that I need". > I have, of course, no preferences within the set (ha ha) of Lojban > dictionaries. If there were more than one, you can give me any of them. >=20 > I surely don't have any Lojban dictionaries in mind, and so if le refers > to in-mind groups, I can't use it. Therefore I am logically forced to use > lo, and that's the end of the discussion. da'i means hypothetical, > da'icu'i might mean hypothetical-or-not. (I don't really care to start a > sub thread about da'i.) That you can't use "le" isn't proof that "lo" is correct. "lo" has its own meaning which is probably more clearly defined than the meaning of any other Lojban gadri. Also, even though you can only use "le" when you know which thing you are talking about, there is no rule that you can't use "lo" if you happen to know which thing you are talking about. If I have a dog, it's totally fine for me to say "lo gerku cu pendo mi", even though I know which dog I am talking about. The difference is probably easier to see in English: The dogs/those dogs like me -- le gerku cu nelci mi Some dogs like me -- lo gerku cu nelci mi If someone is arguing that no dogs like me, it is proper to use "lo" to make a strong existential claim, even if Fido came to my mind when I was trying to think of dogs which have liked me. The "in mind" stuff is a paraphrase for whether the referent is referred to specifically. The test for +specific is whether you can respond "which dogs?". You can't respond this to "Those dogs like me" (unless of course you don't see the dogs, or suchlike), because *those* dogs are "which dogs". [...] > --=20 > What would Jesus bomb? ta'o le do cmaselsku cu na'o zdile --=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 --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+YrzSDrrilS51AZ8RArNDAJ0dGhQBFsWaMhpHG1NhvYuowdtbXgCfYuG7 S+6/90GqwWfv3dS7x7tbEPE= =1Gkn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--