From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Mar 03 15:01:19 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 8907 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.156) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 23:01:19 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:01:19 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Any thread Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2003 23:01:19.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD692200:01C2E1D8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la xod cusku di'e >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, jjllambias2000 wrote: > > > > 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. > >"Is Mary the friend of any doctor at all? Does she have any friends who >are doctors?" > >"Why, yes, she is the friend of a doctor." Correct. > > If someone asks: > > > > xu la meris pendo lo mikce > > > > We have to answer {go'i}, she is the friend of at > > least one doctor. > >How one can be a friend to a nonspecific doctor is hard to imagine. If you say "she is friendly to doctors" you are not saying that she is friendly to any specific 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. > > >But the John-ness is lost when you use lo mikce. Yes, certainly. >Under what circumstances, >assuming cooperative communication, would you say such a thing? Suppose Harry, who doesn't know John, wants to know whether Mary needs some doctor. He asks {xu la meris nitcu lo mikce}. I know that Mary needs John, who happens to be a mikce, so I must answer {go'i}. >Only if >there was no specific doctor identity to work with. Had there been a >specific doctor she needed, you surely would have used le instead. Not necessarily. In this case, the question was posed with {lo} and I have to answer {go'i} or {na go'i}. I only have to decide whether {la meris nitcu lo mikce} is true or false when Mary needs John, who happens to be a doctor. In traditional Lojban,the answer is unequivocally {go'i}. The way you want {lo} to work, which I would prefer too, the answer should be {na go'i} if Mary needs John, a doctor, to help her carry the boxes but is otherwise healthy and in no need for medical attention. >lo'e is a little heavy-handed. It achieves its nonspecificity by stripping >all distinction away from the doctors. "friendly to doctors" doesn't >necessarily apply to nontypical doctors, whereas lo mikce does include >them I use {lo'e} the way you say {lo} works, that's all I'm saying. {lo} is not defined in traditional Lojban the way you want it. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail