Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:47:21 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:59:32AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:39:07PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Your understanding of the English word "any" is not shared by me and
> > Craig, for whom "any" means nonspecific. You seem to think that "any" is
> > somehow specific. Or something. Anyway, Craig's narrowing process,
> > starting with da (any thing), and narrowing down to da poi mikce (any
> > thing that is a doctor) is canonical, and must be refuted if there are any
> > objections.
>
> Any is not specific. "I need a doctor" (which is Any) says nothing
> about which doctor, doesn't assert the existence of such a doctor,
> and doesn't suggest that some doctors may suffice and other doctors
> may not.
>
> "There is a doctor that I need", which corresponds to "lo" (and to
> Ex(Nbx & Mx)) claims that the doctor(s) exists, implies that some
> suffice and some don't (or you'd say "ro" instead of su'o), and
> also says nothing about which doctor, so it is not specific.

I already addressed the ro thing; ro means that the desire is not
satisfied until EVERY doctor has been seen.

If some doctors suffice and some don't, then I have their identities
in-mind, or a test in-mind. That makes le mikce more appropriate.

This has less to do with logic and more with cooperative communication. If
lo mikce is used, the listener should assume (and should be able to
assume) that the speaker is saying the most they can say, and being
cooperative. Since lo mikce can't be used to convey that a certain subset
of doctors is in-mind, then, by cooperative communication, means that no
such subset exists.

-- 
What would Jesus bomb?