From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Mar 03 13:10:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 90831 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.68) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.163] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2003 21:10:56 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:10:54 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: The Any thread Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030303130122.X38820-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1468 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000 " X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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