From xod@thestonecutters.net Sun Mar 02 18:51:40 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 02:51:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 12557 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 04:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Mar 2003 04:55:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 04:55:39 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18pLVj-0003tO-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:55:39 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pLVf-0003t3-00; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:55:35 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:55:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18pLVY-0003sq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 20:55:28 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h224tVN24867 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:55:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:55:31 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Any (was: Nick will be with you shortly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030301235108.J24716-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4264 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, Craig wrote: > >> >Note, however, that the original discussion was about nitcu, with the > >> >x3 unspecified. That makes *all* the difference to me. > >> > >> Therefore the scope of da is limited to the mikce that are acceptable > >> with your ternitcu. However, you do not explain why the unspecified > >> ternitcu makes the difference from 'any doctor' to 'the doctor I have > >> in mind'. > > >Actually, I have. Several times. > > >What if the unspecified ternitcu is "le nu cikre le mi besna"? "Any > >doctor" is most likely *not* a brain surgeon. > > The scope of your da is qualified by the (unspecified) ternitcu. But it > doesn't have to be Dr. Besn if all you need is a brain surgeon. It could be > any brain surgeon. As Xod (IIRC) says, it is Any that passes a > ridiculousness filter. Just as a dead doctor fails this test, so does a > veterinarian if you need a brain surgery performed. Exactly. Constraining the set of applicable doctors, with various rules and filters, is a waste of time. The sentence still reads "any doctor within the set X". You haven't gotten rid of the any-ness until you narrow X down to a single doctor. But if you have all these in-mind characteristics, shouldn't you use le mikce and stop using lo mikce? Yes, you should. Which means we aren't dealing with reasonable, cooperative glosses for lo mikce as we discuss all these in-mind conditions for doctors. -- What would Jesus bomb?