Subject: Re: The Any thread

From: "jjllambias2000 <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:10:54 -0000

Suppose that the folllowing are all true:

la meris pendo la djan noi mikce
la meris na pendo la fred noi mikce
la meris na pendo la alis noi mikce

Can we assert, based on that info, that:

la meris pendo lo mikce

? Yes, Mary is friend to at least one doctor, namely
John. That of course does not mean that Mary is friend to
any doctor. If someone asks:

xu la meris pendo lo mikce

We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at
least one doctor. 

Now, let's say that:

la meris nitcu la djan noi mikce
la meris na nitcu la fred noi mikce
la meris na nitcu la alis noi mikce

Can we assert, based on the above info, that

la meris nitcu lo mikce

? Does Mary need at least one doctor? Yes, she does
need at least one doctor. If someone asks:

xu la meris nitcu lo mikce

we will answer {go'i}. She needs at least one doctor, 
namely John. That again does not at all mean that 
Mary needs any doctor, all we are saying is that there
is at least one that she needs.

The way Xod and Craig want to use {lo} is not how it has 
been defined, but there certainly is a need for that other
meaning. I use {lo'e} for that other meaning, but I would
favour changing {lo} for that function, because it is 
very frequent and basic. That would change the meaning 
of {la meris pendo lo mikce} to "Mary is friendly to doctors",
a generic statement, rather than the concrete meaning "Mary 
is friend to at least one doctor" that it has now.

mu'o mi'e xorxes